PvM posted Entry 951 on January 8, 2006 04:00 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/949

Seems that the Judge agreed with Dembsk after all: Intelligent Design offers a biblical alternative to Darwinism

Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says at SBTS forum 2005 By David Roach, May 07:

The Intelligent Design movement has generated controversy because it deals with issues at the core of the current debate between secularists and those who hold a Christian worldview, said scientist and author William Dembski at a forum held at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary March 23.

The forum, entitled “Darwinism and the Church: a Conversation on Intelligent Design and Cultural Engagement,” was moderated by Russell D. Moore, Southern’s senior vice president for academic administration, dean of the school of theology and director of the event’s sponsor, the Carl F.H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement.

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said. One of the chief methods of accomplishing this is to demonstrate the weakness of the scientific evidence that is presented in support of Darwinian evolution in many school classrooms, he said.

“Evolutionary theory is in such a weak position that it shouldn’t be taught at all � in this grand global sense,” Dembski said. “If you want to say natural selection operates in accounting for antibiotic resistance in bacteria you can make a case there. But if you are going to try to say that’s how you get bacteria, insects, all this in the first place, that’s a huge extrapolation. The theory doesn’t support that.”

For those who argue that (disingenuous) ‘teach the controversy” has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, think again

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said. One of the chief methods of accomplishing this is to demonstrate the weakness of the scientific evidence that is presented in support of Darwinian evolution in many school classrooms, he said.

Remember Judge Jones’ ruling?

Judge Jones wrote:

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have
now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

And then this ‘funny’ assertion, disproven by the facts and ruled upon by the Judge

After offering a critique of Darwinian evolution, Intelligent Design proposes alternative theories about the origin of the universe, according to Dembski. These alternative theories argue that a designer must have fashioned the complex biological and physical mechanisms humans observe in the world, he said.

But ID does not propose any alternative theories. Smoke and mirrors my dear Dembski…

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #68814

Posted by Russell on January 8, 2006 7:07 PM (e)

…said scientist and author William Dembski

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

Comment #68815

Posted by steve s on January 8, 2006 7:10 PM (e)

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Ah, I must have missed the complete title of Darwin’s book: On the Origin of Species and also the Entire Universe

Comment #68816

Posted by shiva on January 8, 2006 7:25 PM (e)

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Is this quote for real? Bill’s ignorance of biology and evolution can startle, but could it be this bad? Not even Dawkins and Dennet claim that ‘Darwinian evolution’ explains the origin of the universe. Maybe Dembski thinks so?

Comment #68819

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 8, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

Then again, one must recall that the retort to the observation that Dembski et al are religiously motivated is that we supposedly are motivated by a metaphysical position–Epicurean materialism. As in:

“In response, you are going to argue that evolution is likewise motivated by a metaphysical position, namely, Epicurean materialism. Show how Epicurean materialism underwrites evolution.”

This is from Dembski’s test, found at:

http://tinyurl.com/amggj

Which shows how competent a philosopher of science the dolt is. The philosophy of science today traces back far more to Kant than to Epicurean philosophies (which are interesting in their excellent conception of how to do science, but lacked the tools to go far in it). And Kant is more Platonic than anything else, not to mention his being a believer in God. In fact Kant’s contribution to Hume’s view of science was to preserve Platonic notions of ideas and mathematics as a prioris, from which one may then proceed to work through the relevant data in as scientific a manner as possible.

Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers. The only reason why Epicurean materialism and positivism/Kantian science tend to converge is that both have rejected unnecessary metaphysical ideas (while mostly acknowledging that we begin with cognitive abilities which are a priori to science), and thus they hit upon a reasonably unbiased conception of how to view the world. Dembski wishes to equate the rejection of metaphysical assumptions with the maintenance of same.

It just goes to show that he has to warp the history of science and philosophy in order to present his warped view of present science as if it were legitimate.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #68826

Posted by Moses on January 8, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Comment #68814

Posted by Russell on January 8, 2006 07:07 PM (e) (s)

…said scientist and author William Dembski

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

In the sense that he’s not a duck.

Comment #68828

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 8, 2006 8:08 PM (e)

Seems that the Judge agreed with Dembsk after all: Intelligent Design offers a biblical alternative to Darwinism

Well, once your lie is exposed in court, there’e not much point in denying it any longer, is there.

Creation “science” did the very same thing, post-Aguillard. Indeed, the creationists were even dumb enough to file a court case in California claiming that *evolution* was a religion too. And indeed I’ve heard some IDers yammering about doing the same thing, post-Dover.

Some things never change. (shrug)

Comment #68830

Posted by PvM on January 8, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

So far I have not found Dembski making the statement as in the quote. He does point out his misunderstanding of Haeckel’s embryos and their relevance to evolution and other ‘Icons’. I guess if one repeats often enough one’s flawed understandings of evolutionary science, people eventually may believe it.

Comment #68832

Posted by pointynose on January 8, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

> Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

Is Mark Perakh a scientist? If yes, only because he was doing science (he doesn’t now)? If so, then Dembski is a scientist if maths is science.

Comment #68839

Posted by Corkscrew on January 8, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

Hey, if maths is science then maybe I actually have a good excuse to get worked up about this stuff!

Anyway, less posting, more Representation Theory.

Comment #68840

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 8, 2006 8:41 PM (e)

“Biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution”?!

Once again we encounter this unsupportable notion that the Bible is opposed to evolution. This is taken as a given by so many that it is stated matter of factly. As if it were obvious. But those of us who know the Bible AND evolution, know better. The original (that is, Hebrew) text of Genesis just does not support this notion of conflict. Yes, it states that there was design. But that idea is also not in conflict with evolution.

Why do some folks persist in staking out positions without doing their homework?

Comment #68841

Posted by Albion on January 8, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

Well, if we’re dealing with the origin of the universe, then certainly that cuts down the available candidates for the position of intelligent designer. But in that case, he should be going after cosmology, not evolution.

This tactic seems to be common among IDists - to say that, yes, OK, we’ll agree that evolution can explain bacterial drug resistance and dog breeds and so on, but it can’t explain larger things like the origin of mammals, especially humans, and the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the solar system for life and so on. Somewhere along the line in their desire to discredit evolution they redefine it so that it’s being asked to do the impossible.

Comment #68843

Posted by Mike Elzinga on January 8, 2006 8:48 PM (e)

Dembski seems oblivious to the fact that science, in the few hundred years it has matured and freed itself from the bondage of religious authority, has discovered more, explained more, and deepened our understanding of the universe far more than has his sectarian world view in a few thousand years. He looks like a complete fool holding himself up as an example of a scientist. Instead, he constantly chases his tail in a whirlwind of sophistry and pseudophilosophy. In spite of his PhD’s, he remains totally naive and inexperienced in the practice and successes of scientific investigation. I have rarely encountered a stuffed shirt so ignorant. He would return science to the days of the Inquisition and set the clock back thousands of years.

Comment #68844

Posted by Henry J on January 8, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

“In response, you are going to argue that evolution is likewise motivated by a metaphysical position, namely, Epicurean materialism. Show how Epicurean materialism underwrites evolution.”

And here I thought evolution was “motivated” by the premise that complex life forms had recent ancestors similar to themselves. Shows what I know, huh.

Henry

Comment #68849

Posted by buddha on January 8, 2006 9:23 PM (e)

Russell wrote:

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

That’s easy: he’s a pseudoscientist!

Comment #68851

Posted by Corkscrew on January 8, 2006 9:26 PM (e)

albion wrote:

Well, if we’re dealing with the origin of the universe, then certainly that cuts down the available candidates for the position of intelligent designer.

I don’t see why that should be the case. One rather cute conjecture that I came across a while back is that, as intelligent organisms develop more and more powerful science, they’re likely to eventually discover how to create new universes. And, of course, they’d create universes that had roughly the same fundamental constants as their own, modulo a small amount of “mutative” variation…

See where this is going? Darwinian evolution of universes, oh my!

Comment #68869

Posted by Lord Monar on January 8, 2006 10:43 PM (e)

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Gee…I thought the goal of a scientific theory was to provide an explanation for the evidence at hand. I guess I was wrong.

Comment #68871

Posted by blipey on January 8, 2006 10:59 PM (e)

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

In the sense that he’s not a duck.

How do we know he’s not a duck? Has someone penetrated the Dembskian Solopsistic Universe to see how he views himself?

Comment #68872

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 8, 2006 11:09 PM (e)

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

Sorry for not being very pc, and probably not very nice, but William Dembski is nothing more than a charlatan who is cashing in on human ignorance and bigotry.

The Discovery Institute would have you belive the theologian we know as William Dembski is actually a scientist who is busy doing “science” and “experiments” while fine tuning the quackery known as Intelligent Design Creationism.

Dembski packs multi-degrees but lacks any in bology or any other subject that would make him an expert in biology or evolution.

The Pandas Thumb is a evolution/biology blog. The flipside is Dembski’s www.uncommondescent.com
Go take a peek at The Intelligent Design Weblog of Bill Dembski (and friends) to see all the “science” being done in the IDC world.

In addition to assuming “…the role of public intellectual” Dembski is also a Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, (which is practically a household name in science and science research).

But where is the science you say? To understand what science is to people like Dembski and the Discovery Institute you have to get a load of the “science” course content Dembski teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Dembski’s “science” course details (from his own website)…

Midterm Exam Fall 2005

Final Exam Dec, 2005

2005/2006 Syllabi

I think that will give you a good idea of what kind of “science” Dembski (and thus the Discovery Institute) bring to the table.

Comment #68876

Posted by Brian on January 9, 2006 12:03 AM (e)

The Intelligent Design movement has generated controversy because it deals with issues at the core of the current debate between secularists and those who hold a Christian worldview.

This of course implies that one cannot be a secularist and hold a “Christian worldview.”

Many of my favorite secularists are in fact Christians. Check out the good folks at www.christianalliance.org or www.talk2action.org

Comment #68880

Posted by Timothy Chase on January 9, 2006 12:29 AM (e)

Dembski is quoted as saying, “I think the other side is worried. And they are right to be worried because I think the ideas are on our side. I think the arguments are on our side.”

Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says at SBTS forum
April 07, 2005
By David Roach
http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=268

Dembski has just made a good number of physicists happy by proving the multiverse theory – because clearly he is living in an alternate universe!

Comment #68881

Posted by Timothy Chase on January 9, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

Corkscrew wrote:

albion wrote:

Well, if we’re dealing with the origin of the universe, then certainly that cuts down the available candidates for the position of intelligent designer.

I don’t see why that should be the case. One rather cute conjecture that I came across a while back is that, as intelligent organisms develop more and more powerful science, they’re likely to eventually discover how to create new universes. And, of course, they’d create universes that had roughly the same fundamental constants as their own, modulo a small amount of “mutative” variation…

See where this is going? Darwinian evolution of universes, oh my!

The mutational variation would itself suggest that the process of “replication” simply isn’t error-free, but over time, perhaps a thousand multiverses later, no doubt inhabitants of descendant universes will have improved upon it.

On a somewhat more serious note, there has been the hypothesis put forward that blackholes recreate the conditions necessary for inflationary periods to exist by replicating the conditions at the beginning of the universe in the formation of their singularities. If so, every time a blackhole is created, a universe (or even a cascade of universes) begins. Then, if there were any way for the universes which are formed to imperfectly “remember” the physical constants of the universes from which they are formed, this could give rise to descent with modification, and the universes which should result from “natural selection” would be those which maximize the production of blackholes – presumably by being especially close to critical density.

Personally, though, I prefer the conjecture you mentioned – it may be no more testable or scientific, but it is cute!

Comment #68882

Posted by H. Humbert on January 9, 2006 12:50 AM (e)

The 5th question on Dembski’s midterm exam:

What is America’s established religious philosophy?

Why do I have a feeling the answer isn’t “Trick question–America doesn’t have an established religious philosophy?”

And question #10:

Briefly outline Darwin’s theory of evolution? What are some of the scientific problems with this theory? Is this theory reconcilable with Christian theism?

I wonder if “Does it ever matter whether or not a scientific theory is “reconcilable” with Christian theism?” was ever a question that was posed. Of course, judging by the test, we can all be certain that the answer is “no,” and that Demski is doing nothing more than brainwashing a whole new generation that evolution is unscientific and anti-god.

Comment #68885

Posted by Tulse on January 9, 2006 1:23 AM (e)

Once again we encounter this unsupportable notion that the Bible is opposed to evolution. […] The original (that is, Hebrew) text of Genesis just does not support this notion of conflict. Yes, it states that there was design. But that idea is also not in conflict with evolution.

That’s simply not the case, at least at the largest scale. Certainly a literal interpretation of the creation story is at odds with the fossil record, and there’s no evidence of a worldwide flood that wiped out all but 2 of each species in humanity’s lifetime.

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it’s just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions. Evolution (or, more precisely, the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development) cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis.

Comment #68895

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 2:21 AM (e)

Tulse,

You are wrong. Have you read the Bible in its original carefully? Try some good books on the subject, such as Landa’s IN THE BEGINNING OF, and get an education.

Comment #68896

Posted by false dichotomy detector on January 9, 2006 2:45 AM (e)

“the current debate between secularists and those who hold a Christian worldview”

You would think that a mathematician, especially “the Isaac Newton of information theory”, would know how to draw a Venn diagram.

Comment #68898

Posted by dictionary definition of Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 2:52 AM (e)

An individual who […] regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore [her], [s]he’s just a troll.”

Comment #68899

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 9, 2006 2:53 AM (e)

So is Dembski still working on that website that will provide the deathblow to evolutionary theory or whatnot?

Is Mark Perakh a scientist? If yes, only because he was doing science (he doesn’t now)? If so, then Dembski is a scientist if maths is science.

I dunno about this. Speaking as someone whose primary area of interest is math-related, I have yet to be impressed with either his credentials in Math or the quality of mathematical reasoning in what writing by him I have read.

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it’s just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions.

Perhaps one could say that the parts which materially conflict with science are not the important parts of those religions? I mean, it seems to me like from a Christian perspective, things like the salvation of the soul are or ought to be a lot more important than worldly matters like, I dunno, the exact origin of turtles.

I mean, I’m just saying here, I don’t think one should fall into the trap of assuming that religion or christianity must necessarily be biblically literalist. I’m not trying to defend the practice of jumping through linguistic hoops trying to stretch both the findings of science and the text of the bible to avoid contradict one another. Or, like, the practice of writing entire books doing this and then posting spam on various internet message boards promoting them.

Comment #68900

Posted by historic myth buster on January 9, 2006 3:15 AM (e)

“Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers.”

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that ‘algebra’, algorithm’, and ‘cypher’ are from Arabic.

Comment #68902

Posted by P.S. on January 9, 2006 3:26 AM (e)

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Columns/SciFri/SciFri_3.18.05_Light_in_the_Dark_Agesancient_Arab_and_Persian_scholars.html

To get an idea how pervasive the influence of Arab mathematicians was during the Middle Ages, visit the MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive and look for biographies of mathematicians born between A.D. 500 and A.D. 999. You’ll find the vast majority of names are Arabic.

One of those names is Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, born in what is now Uzbekistan around A.D. 780. Never heard of him? He’s well known in mathematical circles for a work in which he preserved and expanded on the work of Diophantus, a Greek. The work was titled “ilm al-jabr wal muqabalah,” “the science of transposition and cancellation.” The Arabic “al-jabr” became the Latin “algebra,” the name given to the branch of mathematics Diophantus had founded. Al-Khwarizmi’s own name got twisted into “algorism,” meaning “the art of calculating,” what we now call arithmetic.

Even more important, Al-Khwarizmi drew on the work of Hindu as well as Greek mathematicians, picking up the Hindu numerals, including the zero, which was unknown to users of Roman numerals. His work was translated into Latin, and the numerals–called Arabic numerals, despite their Hindu origin–went with it. The numerals were passed to Europe through the Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci. It took a while, but the Arabic numerals turned mathematical calculations upside down. Today, no one can envision doing long division or any number of other manipulations without them.

The Persian scientist Rhazes, also called by the Arabic name Abu-Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Ar-Razi, was born near what is now Tehran about A.D. 845. He studied medicine and became the chief physician of Baghdad’s biggest hospital. He is credited with being the first to distinguish clearly between smallpox and measles and described his experiments so well that modern scientists can reproduce them. Rhazes also concocted what is now called plaster of Paris and described how it could be made into casts to keep broken bones in place.

The most prominent physicist of the Middle Ages was Alhazen (Arabic name: Abu-‘Ali Al-Hasan ibn Al-Haytham), born in Basra (Iraq) about A.D. 965. Fascinated by optics, he corrected an old notion that people see by rays of light emanating from the eyes and reflecting from objects. Alhazen realized that the sun or some other source emits light before it’s reflected off objects and into the eye. He also explained that lenses magnify objects because of the curvature of their surface, not because of any intrinsic property of the material the lens is made from. He did much work on reflection and refraction of light, including studies of the rainbow and the focusing of light through lenses. He made a pinhole camera and parabolic mirrors, the type now used in telescopes. The world had to wait nearly six centuries–until the days of German astronomer Johannes Kepler, who was heavily influenced by a Latin translation of Alhazen’s work–to see further progress in optics.

The dry air and clear skies of the Middle East led Arabian science to make its most famous marks. Pick up a star chart, and you’ll see all kinds of Arabic names for stars. There’s Algol, the winking “eye of the demon” in the constellation Perseus; Aldebaran, the eye of Taurus, the bull (from Al Dabaran, “follower”–of the Pleiades star cluster); and Betelgeuse, the brightest star in Orion. The name Betelgeuse is from the Arabic Ibt al Jauzah, or Armpit of the Central One, via a long line of intermediate names.

“Arab and other Muslim astronomers made numerous observations of star positions,” says U of M astronomy professor Terry Jones. “Much of the ancient Arabs’ contribution to astronomy consisted of preserving and refining the knowledge of others, especially Greeks and Egyptians.”

For example, Arabian astronomer Albategnius (Arabic name: Abu-‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Jabir al-Battani), born in what is now southeastern Turkey around A.D. 858, made a mark by improving on the work of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, who had drawn up a model of the universe with the Earth at the center. Albategnius noted, among other things, the position of the sun among the constellations at the moment the sun appears smallest–that is, when Earth is farthest from the sun. Observing the sun’s position for himself at that moment, he realized the sun was no longer in the position where Ptolemy had said. He concluded that this position changed slowly and calculated a rather accurate value for the motion. Today, we know this phenomenon happens because the Earth’s elliptical orbit itself rotates. Albategnius became the most respected of Arabian astronomers in the eyes of Medieval Europeans.

To read more on the development of science during ancient and Medieval times, see Isaac Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the source for much of this article.

Comment #68907

Posted by John on January 9, 2006 4:09 AM (e)

I just took a course in the fall on the History of Science in the Medieval Islamic world by Dr. F.J. Ragep at the University of Oklahoma where I learned a great deal about how much modern science and math owes to that community.

It can also be said that Al Haytham was very much a precursor to Francis Bacon and the development of the scientific method. I encourage everyone to study up on science’s Islamic/Arabic past as the west owes much of its progress to this society.

Comment #68909

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 4:23 AM (e)

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it’s just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions. Evolution (or, more precisely, the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development) cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis.

But the Christian Bible was never intended to be taken 100% word-for-word literally by Christians, not even from the very start.

Take the story of the Good Samaritan. The Good Samaritan obviously wasn’t a real person - he was a character in a parable that Jesus made up. By telling that story, Jesus wasn’t giving a true account of two actual uncaring Jews and an actual kind man from Samaria, he was using a fictional example of how we should behave towards people that we don’t have any family or cultural ties to. I don’t think that the parable in question is degraded because it’s a work of fiction - why should the Genesis story be the same?

Hang on, why am I even bothering to type this? Most people reading this are either non-Christians (in which case this is all just fairy tales) or Christians like Ken Miller (who already get this far better than I’m explaining here) and those that aren’t are never going to be swayed by a semi-anonymous commenter in an evolution blog.

So, how about those Jurassic crocodilians, eh?

Comment #68910

Posted by allygally on January 9, 2006 4:24 AM (e)

General comment from someone who isn’t a scientist or a mathematician, or even an American, but who has been following the Dover trial and related issues on line, mainly on the NCSE website and the excellent Panda’s Thumb:

I know that the naming of names is important, and that calling creationism Intelligent Design is a way of disguising its creationist goals, and that some people therefore prefer to use the phrase Intelligent Design Creationism.

But, after the comprehensive beating that Judge Jones gave ID, isn’t it time we started naming ID for what it really is: the Intelligent Design Hoax?

A hoax is defined in the shorter Oxford dictionary as a deception or a joke. Intelligent Design is a huge deception carried out over at least a decade, and it is a sick joke on science, in one way, and gullible Christians, in another way. The last thing creationists can take is open ridicule, and exposing ID as a hoax exposes it to ridicule.

A few letters in every local and national newspaper in the USA referring to the Intelligent Design Hoax would get the idea of a hoax in common use and help to fix in the common mind the real nature of the ID project and the motives of its proponenets.

Comment #68911

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 9, 2006 4:25 AM (e)

Carol Clouser, the *christians* hijacked your bible. Go after the hijackers if you think it is nonsense, but quit whinging about people who are commenting on the *christian* bible. They are not addressing your bible at all.

Comment #68916

Posted by Tim Makinson on January 9, 2006 4:53 AM (e)

“Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?”

In the sense that he likes to misrepresent himself as being a scientist, and will continue to do so unless and until a sufficiently public and sufficiently thorough debunking of his scientific credentials is performed, so that gullible journalists cease to take him at face value.

Comment #68921

Posted by david eames on January 9, 2006 5:31 AM (e)

re:
“That’s simply not the case, at least at the largest scale. Certainly a literal interpretation of the creation story is at odds with the fossil record, and there’s no evidence of a worldwide flood that wiped out all but 2 of each species in humanity’s lifetime.

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it’s just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions. Evolution (or, more precisely, the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development) cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis.”

I agree. Evolution cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis. You gotta choose which road you’re going to travel. And to say that because Jesus used parables like the parable of the Good Samaritan is grounds for us to dismiss other sections of the bible as parable or metaphor, displays a dreadful lack of sound reasoning and unbiased biblical research.

Comment #68922

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 9, 2006 5:50 AM (e)

But the Christian Bible was never intended to be taken 100% word-for-word literally by Christians, not even from the very start.

That’s fine, no one says it is. Problem occurs when you have to decide which part is meant to be literal, which are not, and why. You most likely would come to the conclusion that if it does not make sense literally, then it is figurative.

That’s when it all starts to fall apart. “It makes sense until it doesn’t” is simply not an appraoch one would choose to read any other book. Reading any book that way is just grasping a straw.

Comment #68937

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 7:02 AM (e)

Fernmonkey wrote:

But the Christian Bible was never intended to be taken 100% word-for-word literally by Christians, not even from the very start.

Dude, you’re preaching to the converted. I seriously doubt any of the (respected) long-term contributors on PT would attempt to interpret the bible literally. Unfortunately, some people do interpret it literally.

Comment #68948

Posted by Dene Bebbington on January 9, 2006 7:38 AM (e)

Spot the cronyism in Dembski’s lists of texts for his courses, his DI mates are well represented.

Comment #68949

Posted by djmullen on January 9, 2006 7:44 AM (e)

“Dembski said he looks forward to serving at Southern because of the seminary’s willingness to sponsor Intelligent Design research as a legitimate scientific enterprise”

About time!

“—an attitude that some Christian colleges and universities do not share because they believe embracing intelligent design will compromise their status in the academic world.”

Or they just recognize a losing proposition when they see one.

Comment #68954

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 7:52 AM (e)

Comment #68910 posted by allygally on January 9, 2006 04:24 AM

But, after the comprehensive beating that Judge Jones gave ID, isn’t it time we started naming ID for what it really is: the Intelligent Design Hoax?

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge – who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time – has about ID?

Comment #68955

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 7:58 AM (e)

Yeah, especially a judge who doesn’t know the basics about attorney-client privilege, right Larry? LOL.

Comment #68956

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 8:09 AM (e)

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?

Most judges are not scientists. Those would be pretty demanding careers to hold down simultaneously. However, his opinion is pretty important in the state of Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the stuff that came up at trial really doesn’t look all that good for ID as anything other than an attempt to do an end-run around the SCOTUS ruling against teaching creationism in public schools. ID had its best chance to show what it was made of - a fair trial with all the witnesses they could come up with - and you saw the results. Just like every other time that creationism has had its day in court.

Now, you’re probably going to tell me - correctly - that science is done in labs, not in court. So if there’s anything more to ID than trying to wriggle under the establishment clause, let’s see it. Preferably in peer-reviewed academic paper format.

Comment #68958

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 8:17 AM (e)

Addendum: I think it’s clear now that the best use of the mammoth resources that ID proponents have at hand is in repackaging their publications for the lucrative fundamentalist homeschooling market rather than fighting hopeless constitutional lawsuits.

Of course, they’ll have to fend off the accusations of heresy from the young-earthers…

Comment #68965

Posted by Lord Monar on January 9, 2006 8:42 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?

Because he had the testimony of an expert on biology and the testimony of an expert of ID. He then did his job and decided which side was right.

ID is not science, it could be, but currently it is not. Until the ID’ers formulate a coherent theory, get some legitimate research done and produce some real journal articles it will be nothing more than Astrology for the biologically illiterate.

Comment #68966

Posted by Renier on January 9, 2006 8:43 AM (e)

Larry wrote:
Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?

Because it just so happens to correspond with the view of the vast (VAST) majority of biologists (scientists). But then again, you and the other ID buddies will not give it any weight, simply because the ruling is against what you hoped for. If the ruling was in your favor, would you still be whining about the weight given?

Comment #68968

Posted by KL on January 9, 2006 8:48 AM (e)

“I think it’s clear now that the best use of the mammoth resources that ID proponents have at hand is in repackaging their publications for the lucrative fundamentalist homeschooling market rather than fighting hopeless constitutional lawsuits.”

hmmmm…the best thing the DI could do with their mammoth resources is solve problems like poverty, homelessness, addiction and violence. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do? If only…

Comment #68973

Posted by Donald M on January 9, 2006 9:04 AM (e)

The heading for this thread says “Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says”. Yet in the OP, there isn’t one Dembski quote referencing the Bible, religion or Christianity or anything of the sort. So what is this “biblical” alternative to which the heading refers but, from any of the quotes in the OP, Dembski does not?

Comment #68975

Posted by Jas on January 9, 2006 9:11 AM (e)

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

This is Dembski having a laugh and getting paid for it.
As long as he says evolution is wrong, he can say a whole lot of things, and he’ll still have followers and, more importantly speaking engagements and book sales.

Comment #68976

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 9:13 AM (e)

Comment #68968

Posted by KL on January 9, 2006 08:48 AM (e) (s)

“I think it’s clear now that the best use of the mammoth resources that ID proponents have at hand is in repackaging their publications for the lucrative fundamentalist homeschooling market rather than fighting hopeless constitutional lawsuits.”

hmmmm…the best thing the DI could do with their mammoth resources is solve problems like poverty, homelessness, addiction and violence. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do? If only…

Charity is not going to get Bill Dembski those $200/hr paychecks, capice?

Comment #68979

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 9:24 AM (e)

Comment #68965 posted by Lord Monar on January 9, 2006 08:42 AM
Larry Fafarman wrote:

****Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?*****

Because he had the testimony of an expert on biology and the testimony of an expert of ID. He then did his job and decided which side was right.

But with a different judge and different experts, it is conceivable that a different decision – or maybe even no decision ( on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion ) – would have been reached.

Comment #68982

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 9:31 AM (e)

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

In the sense that he’s not a duck.

.. maybe not a duck … but certainly a ‘quack’…

Larry wrote:
Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?

Scientists and Judges both look at evidence to draw their conclusions Larry.

The conclusion they have both come to in this case in this case is that Intelligent Design is a Hoax.

So now you are reduced to waging a war on the law as well as on science. You know it’s not a good idea to fight a ‘war on two fronts’ don’t you Larry? .. and that your top general has deserted the battlefield, leaving you and the other trolls to fight on alone?

Comment #68983

Posted by Julie on January 9, 2006 9:32 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?

Here is one legal dictionary’s definition of the term “opinion”, as used in this context. A legal opinion is not a guess, nor a gut feeling, nor a political stance. Rather, it is a detailed explanation based on evidence and precedent. (Note the analogy with the use of the word “theory” in a scientific context.)

n. the explanation of a court’s judgment. When a trial court judgment is appealed to a court of appeals, the appeals judge’s opinion will be detailed, citing case precedents, analyzing the facts, the applicable law and the arguments of the attorneys for the parties. Those opinions considered by the court to be worthy of serving as a precedent or involving important legal issues will be published in the official reports available in most law libraries. Since appeals courts have anywhere from three to nine judges, there are often “dissenting opinions” which disagree with the majority opinion, and “concurring opinions” which agree with the result, but apply different emphasis, precedents or logic to reach the determination. Normally the majority opinion identifies the author, but some brief opinions are labeled “in banc” (by the bench) or “per curiam” (by the court) in which the author is not specified.

Comment #68984

Posted by Moses on January 9, 2006 9:37 AM (e)

Comment #68895

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 02:21 AM (e) (s)

Tulse,

You are wrong. Have you read the Bible in its original carefully? Try some good books on the subject, such as Landa’s IN THE BEGINNING OF, and get an education.

Dang, but you’re condescending. And you wonder why (and complain about) people insult you.

First, nobody living has read the “Bible in its original.” It doesn’t exist. Like it or not, every copy is a copy of a copy of a copy and these copies have been censored, amended and, in places, fabricated out of whole cloth for various social/political reasons. That some people feel “their Bible” is the most correct is laughable at this point in time. Nobody knows how much is just plain BS and how much is actual. When biblical scholars talk about translating the Bible, they do so from the context they’re translating it from “the original Greek” and these are, as we know, derivative and amended copies of the original oral stories that were first transcribed.

Second, literalistic interpretations of certain events in the Bible cannot be reconciled with universe as we see and understand it from our human perspective. Nor from many other historical accounts. It is far more than the two stories of Genesis, against which the ilk of Dembski rail in vain. It also includes the events of Exodus, Jesus as messiah and some other very basic issues and items. Which would make Tulse nothing worse that half-right/half-wrong.

However, Tulse didn’t say “any interpretation.” He said LITERAL. Which makes him entirely correct. A “LITERAL” interpretation of the reading of Genesis in the bible is not compatible with the Theory of Change-over-Time….

Comment #68985

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 9:39 AM (e)

Carol is correct, the Bible is not inconsistent with evolution as a secondary means. But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science. From their perspective this must be avoided at all costs. They are very similar to the John Birchers who absolutely needed a communist under every bed. Acknowledgment of the truth, that the bible and science are consistent, would deprive many PTers of their raison d’être. The most they will do is tolerate (in some cases, just barely) someone like Ken Miller, whom they shamelessly exploit as a “useful idiot” because he (erroneously) affirms that the bible and science are merely complementary yet orthogonal.

Comment #68986

Posted by Moses on January 9, 2006 9:39 AM (e)

Comment #68871

Posted by blipey on January 8, 2006 10:59 PM (e) (s)

How do we know he’s not a duck? Has someone penetrated the Dembskian Solopsistic Universe to see how he views himself?

He wears glasses. I’ve seen tens of thousands of ducks in my life. Not one single duck, left to his or her own devices, has ever worn glasses.

Comment #68987

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 9:40 AM (e)

.. don’t get Larry started on legal definitions Julie … he considers himself to be a ‘legal eagle’ and he’ll have that nice lady at the library run off her feet…. probably too late now - expect this thread to be innundated with the ramblings of this self-procalaimed ‘legal genius’.

Comment #68988

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 9:42 AM (e)

hmmmm…the best thing the DI could do with their mammoth resources is solve problems like poverty, homelessness, addiction and violence. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do? If only…

I don’t think they’re really interested in that sort of thing.

But with a different judge and different experts, it is conceivable that a different decision — or maybe even no decision ( on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion ) — would have been reached.

And it is conceivable that if my auntie had testes she could be my uncle. The judge could have made a narrow decision, stating that the Dover school board clearly had religious intent, and not finding anything at all on the wider issues of ID as science or religion. This didn’t happen. The creationists lost in court, just as creationists always lose in US courts of justice.

Now, seeing as you’re the smart lawyer and we’re just poor miseducated bloggers here, tell me this: the TMLC had all the resources that they needed to mount a defence, and they still lost horribly, so what would YOU have done to win this case if you were with the TMLC? Which witnesses would you have called, what sort of evidence would you have subpoenaed, and which questions would you have asked the prosecution witnesses to show that ID is SCIENCE and that it is NOT RELIGION? How would you have done so? (I’d particularly like to know how you’d explain those older drafts of Of Pandas And People, for example.)

Comment #68989

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

Both Ms. Clouser and Mr. Heddle fail to see the big gaping hole in their “reasoning”.

Which “Bible” is literally compatible with “the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development”?

Whoever wins, please clean out the blood of the infidel from the floor.

Comment #68992

Posted by allygally on January 9, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

The Intelligent Design Hoax

Mr Fafarman misses the point when he asks - “Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?”

The judge reached the only conclusion he could, given the evidence and the shakiness of the ID case and the unreliability of the ID witnesses.

But my point is not about the judge, per se, it’s about winning the attention of the public. It’s about PR. There have complaints on this blog and elsewhere that science has all the right arguments, but is still losing the PR war. But in order to win the argument you must also expose your opponent’s position.

Judge Jones’s decision that ID is not science but a smokescreen for creationism, confirms the scientists’ case and destroys the DI’s case. Furthermore, it shows that the DI has been engaged in a decade-long attempt to mislead the world about its “theory”, which is religious not scientific, and its strategy, which is to get religion taught in public schools in the USA. Is this not an elaborate and deliberate hoax?

It is highly unlikely that true creationists will ever be dissuaded of their error, but the threat that ID poses to science education can be deflected (at least in the short term), and Intelligence Design can be exposed to the widest possible levels of ridicule (which it deserves), if ID is given its rightful name: the Intelligent Design Hoax.

Repetition is all. The aim should be to thoroughly discredit the very idea of Intelligent Design, so that that, when the American public sees or hears the words “Intelligent Design”, they immediately associate them with the word “Hoax”. For that to happen, every time a public statement, press release, quote, letter to the editor, blog entry, or whatever, is made, it should be in relation to “the Intelligent Design Hoax”. That way it will eventually sink in to the public consciousness, and maybe even the minds of some politicians, that Intelligent Design is indeed a Hoax.

Comment #68993

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

Don’t encourage him Fernmonkey! Most of the 300 posts on this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/desparate_pathe.html

are of Larry’s legalistic ramblings on the trail. He said he wanted to start ‘1000 Dovers’. Let him take up his own challenge and let’s see what happens….

Let’s use this thread to examine the megalomaniacal rants that can be heard from Dembski’s bunker.

Comment #68995

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 9:50 AM (e)

Comment #68982 posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 09:31 AM
Larry wrote:
****Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?****

Scientists and Judges both look at evidence to draw their conclusions Larry.

The conclusion they have both come to in this case in this case is that Intelligent Design is a Hoax.

So now you are reduced to waging a war on the law as well as on science.

Even in the law, the principle is that single judges do not make final decisions. That is why cases can generally be appealed ( unfortunately and unfairly, the Dover case cannot be ), and why appeals court panels have 3 judges and the Supreme Court has 9 justices.

Also, having different scientific experts might have made a difference. Furthermore, the judge did not get a broad range of opinions on ID, but only got the narrow range of opinions that the testifying scientific experts provided him.

Comment #68998

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 9:58 AM (e)

Sorry, Dean.

To David Heddle: I don’t think that the non-Christian PT regulars care a whit whether the Bible is ‘consistent with science’. It might save time and legal fees if creationists did not keep interpreting the Bible as inconsistent with science, and it would definitely be nice if those same creationists didn’t keep pushing to get their own peculiar religious views taught to other people’s children as science on the taxpayer’s dime, but I think that to most of the non-Christians here the question of whether the Bible is ‘consistent with science’ is about as interesting and relevant to the world around them as that of whether JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien were writing about the same kind of elves.

I would also like to know your rationale for deciding that Ken Miller is either an idiot or the victim of exploitation.

Comment #68999

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 9:59 AM (e)

What did I tell you???

Comment #69000

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 10:00 AM (e)

That’s okay Fernmonkey

Comment #69001

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 10:02 AM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science.

Well, this particular PT regular couldn’t care less if the bible was or was not consistent with science. However, I do find the people who take the bible completely literally and then expect the rest of the world to kowtow before their received wisdom to be extremely amusing.

If you’re not one of these people, your bible has nothing to fear from me.

Comment #69002

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 10:13 AM (e)

Fernmonkey,

Oh they care a great deal. They take great pleasure in pointing out where they believe the bible is in error with regards to science.

As for Ken Miller, I never said, nor do I think, that he is an idiot. Far from it, I am certain he is quite smart. Unlike most of the PT contributors, Miller is an actual scientist. What I wrote was that you guys treat him like a “useful idiot”. When appropriate he is paraded, on a leash, to demonstrate that bright, progressive Christians are sort-of tolerated.

Corkscrew,

You hardly have to tell me that my Bible has nothing to fear from you.

Comment #69005

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 10:13 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Even in the law, the principle is that single judges do not make final decisions. That is why cases can generally be appealed ( unfortunately and unfairly, the Dover case cannot be ), and why appeals court panels have 3 judges and the Supreme Court has 9 justices.

Also, having different scientific experts might have made a difference. Furthermore, the judge did not get a broad range of opinions on ID, but only got the narrow range of opinions that the testifying scientific experts provided him.

No they don’t make final decisions. The Board could, if it wished, have appealed any and all of his conclusions. They did not wish to do so because, as it turned out, the immoral antics of the Board members resulted in them all being unelected (which should tell you something in itself).

However, it is essential that the judge make a ruling that could be considered final if it weren’t appealed. It’s no good him saying “well, I think that this might be the right answer, but you’d better ask my boss”. He has to take full responsibility for the decision. That’s what Judge Jones did, and it was legally valid to do so. Incidentally, the possibility of appeal meant that he would not have made the inflammatory statements that he made unless he was 100% sure that they were completely accurate and supportable. That he was willing to take that stand indicates just how awful the Board’s case was and just how badly they behaved.

Incidentally, which experts would you have summoned rather than, say, Behe? My understanding is that he’s pretty much the cream (cheese?) of the ID crop.

Comment #69008

Posted by jim on January 9, 2006 10:25 AM (e)

Well there’s also Bill Dembski! He’s held in rather high esteem (in his own mind anyway).

Comment #69010

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:33 AM (e)

Comment #68988 posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 09:42 AM

Now, seeing as you’re the smart lawyer and we’re just poor miseducated bloggers here, tell me this: the TMLC had all the resources that they needed to mount a defence, and they still lost horribly, so what would YOU have done to win this case if you were with the TMLC?

For starters, the defendants and the defense could have avoided the following mistakes –

(1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations.
(2) The defendants rejected teachers’ advice for modifying the ID statement.
(3) The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID.
(4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it.
(5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology.
(6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew.
(7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words “intelligent design” for the word “creationist” that appeared in earlier editions.
(8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board’s solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants.

Which witnesses would you have called, what sort of evidence would you have subpoenaed, and which questions would you have asked the prosecution witnesses to show that ID is SCIENCE and that it is NOT RELIGION?

I know who should not have been called as an expert witness – Behe, who said that ID is like astrology. Basically, I would have chosen a scientist who views ID as just a criticism of evolution theory rather than as a complete explanation for the origin of species. Also, I would have introduced non-ID criticisms of evolution theory that use scientific arguments.

In contrast to the Dover school board, the Cobb County school board did not make big mistakes. It now looks like the appeals court may be leaning towards overturning the ban on the Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers.

I noticed the way you spelled “defence” – another non-American on this website? Let’s see – we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don’t know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

Comment #69012

Posted by Moses on January 9, 2006 10:34 AM (e)

Comment #68985

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 09:39 AM (e) (s)

Carol is correct, the Bible is not inconsistent with evolution as a secondary means. But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science. From their perspective this must be avoided at all costs. They are very similar to the John Birchers who absolutely needed a communist under every bed. Acknowledgment of the truth, that the bible and science are consistent, would deprive many PTers of their raison d’être. The most they will do is tolerate (in some cases, just barely) someone like Ken Miller, whom they shamelessly exploit as a “useful idiot” because he (erroneously) affirms that the bible and science are merely complementary yet orthogonal.

Ah, the King of Compartmentalization speaks. It’s amazing the mental gymnastics humans can perform to keep two mutually exclusive, cross-purpose world-views intact.

Let’s see, Origin of Species. Global Flooding. Earth as the Center of the Universe. Pi with the value of 3.00 (though that’s pretty weak and should be discounted). Rabbits that are ruminants. Insects with four feet. Bats are birds. Plants predate the sun. The earth is flat and resting on four pillars.

And if we apply that delusional standard, than no work of religion or fiction is cross-purposes to science. So we should have NO PROBLEM in believing that humans, and all the other animals, are made of clarified butter. Or that the movie “ET” was a documentary, not a work of fiction. And that Area 51 exists and there are LGM. Or that Bush is a competent President.

Comment #69017

Posted by yellow fatty bean on January 9, 2006 10:36 AM (e)

Sadly, it seems the lesson most of the IDers are taking away from Dover is “get better at lying about the nature of ID”. At least Dembski is showing a little honesty here.

Comment #69019

Posted by Noself on January 9, 2006 10:38 AM (e)

Mr Heddle, perhaps you might like to actually read some of the earlier comments and rephrase your assertion into the following (slightly more accurate) statement: “They take ‘great pleasure’ in pointing out where the literal interpretation of the bible is in error with regards to science.”

Furthermore, I think it is highly insulting to Prof Ken Miller to categorise him and ‘them’ ‘using’ him in that fashion.

And it speaks incredible volumns of the Creationist and IDers, if the good prof is characterised by you as a “And if he’s a “bright, progressive Christian”.

Comment #69022

Posted by noself on January 9, 2006 10:39 AM (e)

Apologies, hit enter too soon.

Comment #69025

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 9, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

Heddle wrote:

Oh they care a great deal. They take great pleasure in pointing out where they believe the bible is in error with regards to science.

As Heddle well knows, this is a call-and-response phenomenon. The bible-believers make unsupportable claims of consistency with science, and then atheists, agnostics and rational Christians refute them. If the bible-thumpers would stop with their consistency-with-science nonsense, I doubt that you’d find much discussion on the subject.

Comment #69027

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 10:46 AM (e)

Comment #69010

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:33 AM

I noticed the way you spelled “defence” — another non-American on this website?

the horror…the horror…

Comment #69029

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:48 AM (e)

Comment #69005 posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 10:13 AM

The Board could, if it wished, have appealed any and all of his conclusions. They did not wish to do so because, as it turned out, the immoral antics of the Board members resulted in them all being unelected (which should tell you something in itself).

The new board members were not going to appeal because they campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID rule. The previous board members were defeated by relatively small margins. One of the reasons given for their defeat was taxpayer concern over big legal bills for the lawsuit. Also, the election was held after the board members’ lies were exposed, which probably contributed to their defeat, but the election was nonetheless fairly close.

Incidentally, the possibility of appeal meant that he would not have made the inflammatory statements that he made unless he was 100% sure that they were completely accurate and supportable.

The judge’s awareness that an appeal was extremely unlikely must have emboldened him to make those inflammatory statements.

Comment #69035

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 10:51 AM (e)

Incidentally, which experts would you have summoned rather than, say, Behe? My understanding is that he’s pretty much the cream (cheese?) of the ID crop.

What cracks me up is when Behe is cornered with the notion that IDC is promoting God as the intelligent designer, Michael Behe is quick to point out the intelligent designer could also be a space alien or time traveler.

Now, keeping in mind we have no scientific evidence whatsoever of space aliens, time travelers or even God, Behe looks more like a charlatan or even a stooge than a scientist.

For a good time look at what Behe’s own fellow scientists at Lehigh University’s departments of Biological Sciences has to say about his so called “theories”:

Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Behe was quoted recently saying something to the effect of IDC advocates often have to keep their theories to themselves in order to avoid not getting tenure. Well that makes perfect sense. It is one thing for a university to promote free expression and free speech, it is entirely another to promote academic incompetance.

The important distinction between freedom of expression and academic incompetance eludes dear Behe.

Comment #69038

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 10:56 AM (e)

Noself,

It is not a insult to Miller that he is treated as a useful idiot–it is an insult to those who treat him as such.

What volumes does it speak if I use the description a “bright, progessive Christian”?

Moses

Let’s see, Origin of Species. Global Flooding. Earth as the Center of the Universe. Pi with the value of 3.00 (though that’s pretty weak and should be discounted). Rabbits that are ruminants. Insects with four feet. Bats are birds. Plants predate the sun. The earth is flat and resting on four pillars.

See, y’all do care a great deal about the claim that the Bible is consistent with science.

I’m doing a series on these and other claims, Moses. (Although some such as the earth is flat or at the center of the universe are almost too dumb to address, but I’ll do it in the interest of completeness, and in consideration of those make the charges.)

The first two are Bats are Birds and Pi=3.

Stay tuned for more.

Comment #69041

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 9, 2006 11:01 AM (e)

I’m glad Larry isn’t my lawyer…

(1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations.
Apparently, Larry would have encouraged them to commit perjury, or does he believe the subject just wouldn’t have come up?

(2) The defendants rejected teachers’ advice for modifying the ID statement.
The question was, “What would you have done to win the case?” If the defendants had followed the teachers’ recommendations, there wouldn’t have been a case.

(3)The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID.
Duh. And you would have taught them? What knowledge were they missing that might have turned the tide, given their obstinate religious motivations?

4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it.
We know this–what’s your point? How does this help to make a better case, or weren’t you paying attention when the question was asked?

(5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology.

There is no “view” of ID that won’t also admit for teaching astrology, alchemy, or any other type of pseudoscience. Behe did the best he could with what he had to work with.

(6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew.

Actually, this was probably an advantage for the defendants, as there’s no reason to assume that Dembski, e.g., would have come off any better then Behe did. You see, it’s ID that’s free from rational content, not the defendants’ case.

(7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words “intelligent design” for the word “creationist” that appeared in earlier editions.

There are no ID books that aren’t easy targets. Witness the treatment of Behe’s book, which is considered a bulwark of ID.

(8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board’s solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants.

But as has been pointed out before, the cited message, given the mountain of evidence against the defendants, didn’t amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Comment #69042

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 11:02 AM (e)

Comment #68828 posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on January 8, 2006 08:08 PM

the creationists were even dumb enough to file a court case in California claiming that *evolution* was a religion too. And indeed I’ve heard some IDers yammering about doing the same thing, post-Dover.

Well, as the saying goes, sometimes offense is the best defense.

Evolution itself has many of the trappings of religion. Many of the terms that apply to religion – e.g., dogma, heresy, and faith – also apply to evolution.

Many evolution proponents – including scientists – say that evolution is consistent with their religious beliefs. Some even say that evolution is part of their religious beliefs, or that their religious beliefs enable them to overlook the deep flaws of evolution theory.

So there is good reason to ban evolution too because of its religious connections.

Comment #69044

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 11:05 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

For starters, the defendants and the defense could have avoided the following mistakes —

(1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations.
(2) The defendants rejected teachers’ advice for modifying the ID statement.
(3) The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID.
(4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it.
(5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology.
(6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew.
(7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words “intelligent design” for the word “creationist” that appeared in earlier editions.
(8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board’s solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants.

1) If the defendants lied about their religious motivations to a judge they’d be guilty of even more perjury. If they had no religious motivations then I doubt they’d have tried to force ID into schools
2) If they’d taken their teachers’ advice then they wouldn’t have tried to force ID into schools.
3) If they’d actually attempted to learn about ID from actual professional scientists in related fields such as evolutionary biology or palaeontology, they’d have discovered that ID was intellectually vacuous and wouldn’t have tried to force ID into schools.
4) That’s because the motivation was religious and the participants were dishonest. Neither of which would have been conducive to victory in court
5) I have yet to see a view of science that incorporates ID but doesn’t incorporate some funny stuff like astrology. Anyway, if they hadn’t presented Behe they wouldn’t have had many expert witnesses, and if Behe had lied about his opinion I’m pretty sure he’d have been picked up on it
6) Sucks to be them. Incidentally, which expert witnesses pulled out? I don’t recall.
7) Could this perhaps be because Intelligent Design is in fact rebranded Scientific Creationism? If so, do you really think the judge was dumb enough not to realise that?
8) Fair point. You win some, you lose some.

Comment #69046

Posted by gwangung on January 9, 2006 11:10 AM (e)

Evolution itself has many of the trappings of religion. Many of the terms that apply to religion — e.g., dogma, heresy, and faith — also apply to evolution.

No, it doesn’t.

Being stupid again, I see.

Comment #69047

Posted by rdog29 on January 9, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

Heddle -

Since when has anyone on PT claimed that they “do not want” the Bible to be consistent with science? Care to back that up with some facts?

And if ID is “all about the science”, why should compatibilty with the Bible be an issue at all? Why does no one worry whether Quantum Mechanics is compatible with the Bible?

And why does no one (or at least a small minority at best) seems to be worried whether evolution is compatible with the Koran, the teachings of Joseph Smith, or any of the Hindu sacred texts, or the Urantia book for that matter?

Why is it always the Bible, the Bible, the Bible??? Could it be that ID is at its core a fundamentalist Christian political crusade? If ID is all about the science, why can’t everyone regardless of belief or lack thereof join in?

Comment #69048

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

Moses,

For someone with a name such as yours, you display quite a bit of ignorance about the books of Moses.

The Greek Septuagint is not the original written version of the Bible. If you knew any history you would know that the Septuagint originally was a translation performed by Jewish scholars at the behest of King Ptolemy. They translated from the Hebrew to the Greek.

Aside from difficulties and errors inherent in any translation, we are informed by the Talmudists that the Jewish scholars DELIBERATELY mistranslated from the Hebrew to avoid difficulties with the temperamental king.

And there are millions of folks, including myself, who have read the Bible “in its original”.

And you miss the point of my response to Tulse and my original post. The point was that the original Bible is not in conflict with science even if interpreted literally. Yes, you read that correctly - even if interpreted literally, so long as it is translated correctly.

Telling someone he/she is wrong is fair game in a debate. That is not considered an insult. And I think you are well aware of that.

All the Biblical criticisms you cite in your response to David have been shown long ago to be entirely vacuous.

Comment #69049

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 11:17 AM (e)

Larry, you answered the question you wanted to answer, not the question I asked you. I asked you what you’d have done in Dover to win the case, with the school board and the facts as they were, not with a hypothetical school board that didn’t talk about creationism all the time and that didn’t hold a church fundraiser to buy ID books and then try to launder the proceeds and that didn’t lie under oath about it.

Yes, I’m British (expat living in the Czech Republic) and no, we don’t have constitutional separation of church and state in Britain. However, I’m a great admirer of US Constitutionalism for reasons such as this.

Comment #69051

Posted by Bob O'H on January 9, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

He said he wanted to start ‘1000 Dovers’. Let him take up his own challenge and let’s see what happens….

Does that mean he’ll have to dig 1000 channel tunnels?

Bob

Comment #69053

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 11:27 AM (e)

Ms. Closer, Mr. Heddle:

I’d love to agree with you, but apparently it isn’t possible: when you speak about “the Bible” you are referring to two very different books.

Now, before I can take either of you seriously, I’d like you to reach a consensus on which Bible is the real Bible™, which - taken literally - does not conflict with science.

Is it

A) Clouser’s Bible?
B) Heddle’s Bible?
C) Neither?

Thank you. Please refrain from commenting as if you had addressed this question until (unless) you do, in fact, address it.

Comment #69056

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 11:36 AM (e)

Comment #69041 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 9, 2006 11:01 AM

I’m glad Larry isn’t my lawyer…

Sheesh. I not only have to give explanations, but now I have to give explanations for my explanations. Where will it end ?

(1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations.
Apparently, Larry would have encouraged them to commit perjury, or does he believe the subject just wouldn’t have come up?

What I meant was that they should have been quiet about their religious beliefs when promoting the ID rule.

(2) The defendants rejected teachers’ advice for modifying the ID statement.
The question was, “What would you have done to win the case?” If the defendants had followed the teachers’ recommendations, there wouldn’t have been a case.

The teachers proposed an ID statement that would have been less disparaging of evolution.

(3)The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID.
Duh. And you would have taught them? What knowledge were they missing that might have turned the tide, given their obstinate religious motivations?

They looked bad because they did not know anything about something that they were pushing.

(4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it.
We know this—what’s your point? How does this help to make a better case, or weren’t you paying attention when the question was asked?

They could have found another source for the money – it was only $850.

(5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology.
There is no “view” of ID that won’t also admit for teaching astrology, alchemy, or any other type of pseudoscience. Behe did the best he could with what he had to work with.

I am not sure, but I think that Behe said that ID is like astrology because he views ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species. If he had viewed ID as just a criticism of evolution theory, he could have avoided saying that ID is like astrology.

(6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew.
Actually, this was probably an advantage for the defendants, as there’s no reason to assume that Dembski, e.g., would have come off any better then Behe did. You see, it’s ID that’s free from rational content, not the defendants’ case.

No one could have done a worse job of defending ID than Behe, who said that ID is like astrology.

(7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words “intelligent design” for the word “creationist” that appeared in earlier editions.
There are no ID books that aren’t easy targets. Witness the treatment of Behe’s book, which is considered a bulwark of ID.

I don’t know – I have not read and compared all ID books. All I said was that the Pandas book was an easy target for the reason I stated.

(8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board’s solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants.
But as has been pointed out before, the cited message, given the mountain of evidence against the defendants, didn’t amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

The message amounted to a lot – it was a major factor in the judge’s decision. See pages 111-112 of the opinion. And every little bit counts.

The opinion attacked the defendants on each of the above mistakes, except the mistake of the internal squabbling of the defense teams. If the defendants had not made these mistakes, there would have been less for the judge to attack – obviously.

Comment #69059

Posted by Tim Hague on January 9, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

I noticed the way you spelled “defence” — another non-American on this website? Let’s see — we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don’t know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

So, what’s your point Larry? That the ID crowd would be better off trying to peddle their twaddle in the UK?

How do explain the fact that - despite having a state sponsered religion and - yes - creationism taught in government funded schools - we actually have a massively smaller percentage of actively religious people in the UK? Amazing isn’t it…

By the way - I’m British too. Just like Darwin. You did know Darwin was British, didn’t you?

Comment #69060

Posted by drakvl on January 9, 2006 11:45 AM (e)

“So we should have NO PROBLEM in believing that humans, and all the other animals, are made of clarified butter …. And that Area 51 exists and there are LGM.”

Whoa, there. I can understand being skeptical of the idea that the place is a storage facility for alien technology, but to say the place out-and-out doesn’t exist? That is, that there is no military base at the end of Highway 365 in Nevada? It seems to me this is a case of overcorrection (to steal a term from driver’s ed).

David Hettle:

I am agnostic, yet I still find value in the Bible – if only from an historical point of view. I also believe there is truth in the Bible – if only because, statistically speaking, a book that big has to get something right. I find the idea that the Bible is not literally true fits in better with my understanding of the historical development of religions than does the idea that the Bible is completely, 100% correct and dictated from high by the Creator. (Similarly, I like the ideas put forth in evolutionary theory, because they make sense in terms of what I know of dynamical systems.) It’s not that I don’t want to believe in the Bible’s absolute truth; it’s that, if I were to do so, nothing else would make sense. Actually, I guess that gives me a reason to want the Bible to be wrong in some places: I like to understand to world around me.

Comment #69061

Posted by Joe the Ordinary Guy on January 9, 2006 11:49 AM (e)

Larry F wrote:
“Evolution itself has many of the trappings of religion. Many of the terms that apply to religion — e.g., dogma, heresy, and faith — also apply to evolution.”

The whole “Science is just another religion” thing is ridiculous. My aunt has two eyes, two ears, a nose, two arms, two legs, OMG, she’s just exactly like my uncle! In fact, the similarities are so overwhelming that she must actually BE my uncle!

If you put science and all the thousands of religions in the world in a room, and asked any rational person “Which of these is not like the others?” the answer would be “Science” every time.

Comment #69062

Posted by Julie on January 9, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

There’s no reason at all why the Bible should be either wholly consistent or wholly inconsistent with modern scientific inquiry. The Bible was written before the development of the scientific method. The scriptures and mythologies of most other major religions also pre-date the methods now used to study both human history and the natural world. There’s no reason why the ancient Hebrews or the early Christian church should be held to 21st century (or even 18th century) academic standards – no more than ancient Greek legends lose cultural value because they are probable composites of multiple events and include stories of intervention by the Olympian gods.

That’s why, from a scientific perspective, this is generally considered to be a non-issue.

Comment #69063

Posted by Tim Hague on January 9, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

No one could have done a worse job of defending ID than Behe, who said that ID is like astrology.

Behe is the crown prince of the ID movement, Larry. He is the one true biological scientist that they have. Dembski’s work is all based on Behe’s irreducible complexity.

Larry Fafarman wrote:

I don’t know — I have not read and compared all ID books. All I said was that the Pandas book was an easy target for the reason I stated.

As has been said already by other contributors - all of the ID books are just as easy targets as Pandas. Behe’s book is an easy target because it’s all about ‘irreducible complexity’ (synonym for ‘lack of imagination’). Dembski’s books are based on Behe’s “seminal” work. Meyer’s book is just a cobbled together collection of a bunch of creation science ‘objections’ to evolution, very nearly all of which has been roundly debunked decades ago (and the rest debunked since). It’s all entirely vacuous.

If the ID movement wants to fight in the science playground, all they need to do is start doing science. They haven’t done any yet.

And if you want to debate ID on Panda’s Thumb, I strongly recommend you read up on the ID books first.

Comment #69064

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

rdog29 wrote:

And if ID is “all about the science”, why should compatibilty with the Bible be an issue at all? Why does no one worry whether Quantum Mechanics is compatible with the Bible?

Now, I find this interesting cos I’m currently studying QM and there’s a very obvious question that arises: if God is omniscient - sees everything - then why isn’t he continually collapsing the wavefunction? Seems like a quantum universe + an omniscient God would behave exactly like a classical universe.

Tim Hague wrote:

By the way - I’m British too. Just like Darwin. You did know Darwin was British, didn’t you?

Actually he went to my Cambridge college (Christ’s). There’s a rather cool shrine in his honour over by the laundrette. If you ever visit Cambridge in summer I recommend checking it out - the shrine itself is somewhat tacky but there’s a beautiful magnolia tree overhead and a lovely little stream.

Hmm, I think I may have gone a little off-topic. Sorry, folks.

Comment #69065

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 9, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

So…

It seems eventually every single thread on this site becomes either “The Carol Clouser thread” or “The Larry Fafarman thread”. Eventually either Fafarman comes in and starts pushing his bizarre on-a-whim legal theories; or Clouser comes in and starts promoting her publisher’s interpretations of the Torah as inassailable truth. Both of these people inevitably say the exact same thing in every thread, and both are from what I’ve seen impressing no one but themselves. But their persistence means that once they start going, all other discussion ceases. Anything which is not part of their personal private flamewar gets simply flooded out.

This is making discussion here essentially impossible. Every thread on the site effectively has a big timer hanging over it, and when that timer reaches 0, the topic at the top of the thread is discarded and Fafalman or Clouser (or in this case both in parallel) become the new topic of discussion. This gets old after awhile. Watching the dishonest act as punching bags is only amusing for so long.

Does this just go on forever, then?

Comment #69066

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 11:52 AM (e)

rdog29,

Heddle -
Since when has anyone on PT claimed that they “do not want” the Bible to be consistent with science? Care to back that up with some facts?
And if ID is “all about the science”, why should compatibilty with the Bible be an issue at all? Why does no one worry whether Quantum Mechanics is compatible with the Bible?
And why does no one (or at least a small minority at best) seems to be worried whether evolution is compatible with the Koran, the teachings of Joseph Smith, or any of the Hindu sacred texts, or the Urantia book for that matter?

Of course no one explicitly claims “I don’t want the bible be consistent with science.” Even most PT commenters are not that foolish. Instead one can find a variety of instances, such as almost anytime my friend Carol speaks, where, when a claim is made of said consistency, it is immediately attacked. Furthermore, from some of the more radical PT contributors, you can find even stronger claims that not only is the bible not consistent but religion (regardless of the truthfulness of its holy writings) in general is not compatible with science.

I don’t see your point about ID. I am not stating that ID is consistent with the bible—I am saying something stronger, namely that science is consistent with the bible. I never mentioned ID. However, if ID is science, then it must be consistent with the bible.

As for QM, the bible doesn’t say anything about QM. In fact the Bible says little about science, but what it does say is consistent.

As for the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc—I have no clue whether their proponents care about consistency with science. Surely that question was not meant for me—or perhaps it was rhetorical.

Aureloa,

What do you mean taken literally? Do you mean that your ground rules are one can never argue:

1) That something might be a figure of speech (the sun rising, the four corners of the earth)
2) That there are possible translation errors
3) That the ancients did not employ modern, western styles
4) The hyperbole was sometimes used
5) The sometimes context is relevant and even determining

etc– that is, are you saying that I must take my favorite modern translation and am only allowed to employ a strictly literal hermeneutic? Is that how you are stacking the deck? For in that case, if I am so handcuffed, then I agree that the bible teaches Pi = 3. I also must then agree that Christ is literally a door and also a vine.

I contend that the bible can still be taken literally, mod points 1-5, and is consistent with science. There is a difference between literal and strictly literal, and even the most literal Christian bible readers–the dispensationalists, allow the possibility that the writers employed metaphors, etc.

Comment #69068

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

He said he wanted to start ‘1000 Dovers’. Let him take up his own challenge and let’s see what happens….

Does that mean he’ll have to dig 1000 channel tunnels?

Bob

When he’s in a hole Larry just can’t stop digging.

Larry Farfarman wrote:

I noticed the way you spelled “defence” — another non-American on this website? Let’s see — we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don’t know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

Not taught as science Larry, and as you know the ‘British Schools’ stuff has been waiting for you here for ages.

Having lost ‘Waterloo’ - the general has scuttled off to make vainglorious plans in his Southern bunker - leaving that troll Larry to fight a war on two fronts - against scientific opinion and the American legal system. Can’t balme him for having to adopt guerilla ‘hit and run’ tactics really.

Larry - you were exposed as a legal ingnoramous here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/desparate_pathe.html

and you scuttled off, only to start all over again on this thread - presumably in the hope you’d come across some new people that might take you seriously.

Stop wasting webspace and ask that nice lady at the library for a date.

Comment #69069

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

Aureola Nominee,

We are here discussing Genesis, which is where the areas of interaction with science are primarily concentrated.

Julie,

Your argument is eminently reasonable to a person who perceives the Bible as merely the handiwork of ordinary mortals. It is entirely unreasonable from the point of view that the Bible is a divinely inspired document. After all, who or what would know science better than the party responsible for breathing fire into it?

Comment #69070

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

Mr. Heddle:

taken literally, mod points 1-5

LOL. This is equivalent to saying “taken literally, except where Mr. Heddle thinks it should not be taken literally, because of figures of speech, mistranslations, style, etc.”

Then, I agree: if the Bible is “taken literally, mod points 1-5”, it is certainly compatible with science, with Evolution, and with basically anything else. With this, it simply drops off my (and many other people’s, apparently) radar screen.

Comment #69071

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

Comment #69049 posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 11:17 AM

Larry, you answered the question you wanted to answer, not the question I asked you. I asked you what you’d have done in Dover to win the case, with the school board and the facts as they were, not with a hypothetical school board that didn’t talk about creationism all the time and that didn’t hold a church fundraiser to buy ID books and then try to launder the proceeds and that didn’t lie under oath about it.

With “the facts as they were,” I would not have taken the case. I would have waited for a better test case. Under the circumstances, I don’t think that anything could have been done to win the case. These cases are generally decided at least partly on the basis of the motivations of the public officials. A better case could have been made for ID itself – Behe was not a good spokesperson.

If I had been forced to represent the defendants, I would have advised them to avoid the mistakes I enumerated.

Of course, a lot of my observations are based on hindsight. But we learn from past mistakes.

The Cobb County, Georgia school board did not make the big mistakes that the Dover Area school board made, and it looks like their appeal of the ban on the evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers has a good chance of winning.

Comment #69072

Posted by Tim Hague on January 9, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

Andrew McClure wrote:

Does this just go on forever, then?

It certainly feels like it sometimes. And you missed out Heddle, who’s on this thread too. All we need now is for Blast From The Past to make an appearance and we’ll have a ‘flush’ ;).

Corkscrew wrote:

Actually he went to my Cambridge college (Christ’s). There’s a rather cool shrine in his honour over by the laundrette. If you ever visit Cambridge in summer I recommend checking it out - the shrine itself is somewhat tacky but there’s a beautiful magnolia tree overhead and a lovely little stream.

I’ve been there :)

Comment #69074

Posted by Bob O'H on January 9, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

By the way - I’m British too. Just like Darwin. You did know Darwin was British, didn’t you?

I’m British too. So was William Paley. Bugger, in the end this mess is all our fault. We even sent the fundamentalists over there.

I think we should petition Her Majesty to issue an apology for the past acts of her predecessors’ subjects.

Bob
P.S. (and TOTALLY off-topic) it’s a little known fact that William Penn’s aunts stayed in Cornwall after he left, and started a pie shop. G&S fans can work out the punchline for themselves.

Comment #69075

Posted by Tim Hague on January 9, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

Bob O'H wrote:

I’m British too. So was William Paley. Bugger, in the end this mess is all our fault. We even sent the fundamentalists over there.

Maybe the ID crowd should change tack from ‘teach the controversy’ to ‘blame the British’ ;)

Comment #69076

Posted by Randy on January 9, 2006 12:16 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

The Greek Septuagint is not the original written version of the Bible.

The Septuagint is not the original written version of the Bible but neither is it any newer than the Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls from Cave IV which is the oldest existing Hebrew copy of the Torah or the Tanakh. Furthermore, from the sources I’ve read (here’s a quick one from Googling), there are few substantive differences between the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Torah.
So, what Original Bible do you have access to that the rest of us don’t, Carol? Please let me know because, although I only minored in Religous History, I find it taking up much more of my interest in these times. I truly would be interested in knowing.
Randy

Comment #69077

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 12:20 PM (e)

Aureola,

Your comment does not pass muster. It is a common ploy, to condescendingly say that if one is allowed to use arguments such as 1-5 then “LOL, of course you can make anything consistent.” It’s a false dimmea—either (a) the bible must be defended hyper-literally or (b) it is pointless because anything goes.

But there is something in between, something not familiar to most PT commenters, namely scholarship. One can make a claim that a certain statement is metaphorical—such a claim can be evaluated. If the Genesis account stated: “And God placed the earth, which was shaped like a flat disk, in the center of the cosmos, and, as it is the pinnacle of His creation, He directed all the heavenly orbs to rotate about, prevented from escaping their paths by angels” then it would be impossible to argue that the bible was consistent with science regardless of how much one cried “poetic language”. However, if it states that “the sun moved across the sky,” then it is plausible that it is a figure of speech rather that a scientific declaration.

Saying that, in effect, you must defend it hyper-literally or there’s no point is an extreme copout.

Comment #69078

Posted by Flint on January 9, 2006 12:22 PM (e)

Andrew:

This gets old after awhile. Watching the dishonest act as punching bags is only amusing for so long.

Essentially, this is the purpose of the whole site. Would you prefer that it ignore the creationists and everyone spend their time telling one another how fascinated they are with how biology works?

His post explaining in some detail how the Dover school board should have disguised and misrepresented their motivations so as to trick the courts is pretty damn informative.

What I meant was that they should have been quiet about their religious beliefs when promoting the ID rule.

This claim illustrates the creationist mindset impressively concisely. Their motivation is, in Larry’s mind, less important than how well they can keep their movivations a secret.

The teachers proposed an ID statement that would have been less disparaging of evolution.

Yet another illustration. The teachers emphatically rejected ID as being nonscience, but were willing to try to make the ID statement less vile in exchange for freeing up the money they desperately needed to purchase a real biology text. But the actual facts are only obvious to someone who hasn’t read the decision.

They looked bad because they did not know anything about something that they were pushing.

But what’s not clear is whether they’d have looked better if they DID know anything about it, since it was pure religious doctrine. The decision makes it pretty clear that sticking religious doctrine into science class is illegal *whether or not* the lazier creationists on the board did their homework.

They could have found another source for the money — it was only $850.

Except that according to their advisors the TMLC and the DI, this was far and away the best source available. All other courses were FAR more obviously religious apologetics.

I am not sure, but I think that Behe said that ID is like astrology because he views ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species. If he had viewed ID as just a criticism of evolution theory, he could have avoided saying that ID is like astrology.

As the decision makes clear, Behe and Minnich both conceded that everything they said was a criticism of evolution, and not a proposed testable alternative. Over and over, both of them had to admit that EVEN IF their criticisms were valid, they lent no support to any scientific alternative.

The message [from the solicitor] amounted to a lot — it was a major factor in the judge’s decision.

No, it was not. All it did was lend a little bit of support to the argument that the board’s motivation was so religious that both legal (from the solicitor) and technical (from the scientists and science teachers) was ignored.

Larry’s entire argument was that the religious nature of ID was insufficiently shielded from the court’s appreciation. And as far as I’m concerned, this is important. It underscores how fundamentally dishonest creationists are. His goal is to get religion into science class, whatever it takes. Lying? Cheating? Perjury? No problem, so long as it worked. And since it failed, they didn’t lie *indetectibly enough*.

Larry admits that, if he’d been in charge, he’d have muzzled those who kept thinking they should mention their God in doing their God’s Will. I find no suggesting in anything Larry has written to suggest that religion should be kept out of science class; he’s entirely concerned with getting it to happen.

Comment #69079

Posted by AC on January 9, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

…you guys treat [Ken Miller] like a “useful idiot”. When appropriate he is paraded, on a leash, to demonstrate that bright, progressive Christians are sort-of tolerated.

David, you have your axe to grind, but this “evolutionists want to get rid of religion!” schtick is just lame. You well know that religious belief does not preclude scientific endeavors or success in them. Science fails when the method is abandoned, and that can be done by anyone, for any reason. It is a choice people make, and - though it may be influenced or motivated by religion in some cases - it is not an inevitable result of religion. You know this, and so do those you would paint as atheist fanatics.

If I met Ken Miller, he could teach me a lot about the details of biology. We could also have a boring and fruitless discussion about his religion, but I don’t hold that against him, and it certainly has nothing to do with the accuracy of his scientific knowledge.

The only thing I have against Carol is that she repeatedly claims that the One True Bible™ is, despite our cultural ignorance, indeed consistent with evolution. However, to learn the details behind this claim, we must buy a book with whose publishing she is associated. Sorry, but I refuse to deposit coins in the coffers of mystics to learn their arcana. At least you refer us to your public blog for details.

Carol wrote:

Your argument is eminently reasonable to a person who perceives the Bible as merely the handiwork of ordinary mortals. It is entirely unreasonable from the point of view that the Bible is a divinely inspired document. After all, who or what would know science better than the party responsible for breathing fire into it?

And this is why believers argue so strenuously that their favored tradition is consistent with science. It is the means to make the further claim that it is consistent precisely because it is divinely revealed. It seeks to hitch itself to the relentless, blatant success of science, to provide authority and legitimacy to what is otherwise, well, the handiwork of mere mortals.

If believers didn’t bring up the bible, non-believers would scarcely speak of it. Believe otherwise if you wish.

Comment #69081

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 12:24 PM (e)

I think we should petition Her Majesty to issue an apology for the past acts of her predecessors’ subjects.

Don’t blame Liz! after all she’s happy to share the £10 note (legal tender in laundrettes and pieshops throughout the land) with Charles Darwin:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/current/current_10.htm

Don’t you Americans have some strange masonic symbols on yours?

Comment #69083

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 12:35 PM (e)

Oh, no, Mr. Heddle! That’s what you wished I did, not what I did. I set up no false dilemma of any sort.

You claimed that the Bible (by the way, which one?) is literallycompatible with this and that.

Literally means literally, i.e., “to the letter” (not to the metaphorical spirit, not to the hyperbolic exaggeration, not to the stylistic innovation; to the letter).

I happen to share the opinion that the Bible has parts that were written metaphorically, parts that used stylistic hyperbole, parts that were merely poetic, and so on. I also happen to share the opinion that some of the events described in the Bible really did happen.

So tell me, Mr. Scholar; am I a Biblical “Literalist-mod points 1-5™ too?

Comment #69084

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 9, 2006 12:37 PM (e)

It certainly feels like it sometimes. And you missed out Heddle, who’s on this thread too. All we need now is for Blast From The Past to make an appearance and we’ll have a ‘flush’ ;).

Well… I don’t know if I quite catch what Mr. Heddle is trying to say, so I’m not sure if I agree with him or not– but he at least seems to be very polite and doesn’t seem to generally bring up his religious views in a thread unless someone specifically provokes him by name.

On the other hand, from what I have seen of this Blast from the Past character in the short time I’ve been reading this site, he seems to be (frankly) insane, but amazingly it appears to have reached the point where when BFTP appears in a thread, literally no one responds.

Would you prefer that it ignore the creationists and everyone spend their time telling one another how fascinated they are with how biology works?

Well, no, but the thing is there is a difference between the site attempting to debate with the creationist community and the site attempting to debate Larry Fafalman exclusively. The former holds some purpose, I think. The latter, after a sufficient number of weeks, becomes just repetitive. Honest arguments from creationists, as are seen in here occasionally, are truly helpful even if the arguments are entirely false– if only because this warn advocates of science of what kinds of arguments they will have to be prepared to face in future in more formal settings. But someone like Larry who continuously just makes things up on the spur of the moment is not contributing anything to either side of the discussion, and once Fafalman’s lack of intellectual honesty has been demonstrated a certain number of times debunking his claims does not help the debate to mature.

*shrug* Just wondering, at some point does it cease to be productive?

Comment #69086

Posted by Gorbe on January 9, 2006 12:38 PM (e)

Perhaps one could say that the parts which materially conflict with science are not the important parts of those religions? I mean, it seems to me like from a Christian perspective, things like the salvation of the soul are or ought to be a lot more important than worldly matters like, I dunno, the exact origin of turtles.

For fundamentalist Christians, the 66-book Protestant BIBLE (KJV-only for some) – and not Jesus – is their primary object of worship. To them, if you demonstrate any error in their Bible (or more specifically their denomination’s interpretation thereof), their either-or mindset tells them it is entirely untrustworthy and certainly not useful for “spiritual edification.”

Of course, this is a bogus dichotomy of their own making. But, nevertheless, it is how they “reason.” I know this because I am an ex-fundamentalist Christian. Even to this day, vestiges of this kind of black-or-white mentality plagues my thinking on a whole range of issues.

Comment #69087

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:33 AM (e) (s)

1.I know who should not have been called as an expert witness — Behe, who said that ID is like astrology. Basically, I would have chosen a scientist who views ID as just a criticism of evolution theory rather than as a complete explanation for the origin of species. Also, I would have introduced non-ID criticisms of evolution theory that use scientific arguments.

In contrast to the Dover school board, the Cobb County school board did not make big mistakes. It now looks like the appeals court may be leaning towards overturning the ban on the Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers.

2.I noticed the way you spelled “defence” — another non-American on this website? Let’s see — we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don’t know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

1.Behe is probably the only biologist the ID movement have. He did not say ID was like astrology. Rather he said that the way scientific standards would have to be changed in order to include ID they would also then allow astrology in.

2.Do you have a problem with British posters? No other colonialists seem to object. Creationism is taught in some British schools Larry. One of the few statements you have made that is correct. However creationism is taught in religious education. Evolution is taught in biology classes.

Comment #69088

Posted by Ericnh on January 9, 2006 12:41 PM (e)

Does it really matter whether we take the Bible literally or metaphorically? Either way, to me it’s still a collection of Jewish history, law, and mythologies (the Old Testament that is) transcribed from oral to written history and presented as the basis for a religious text. The real question is whether or not these are truly “divinely inspired”. Did a burning bush really speak to Moses and identify itself as God, or was Moses suffering from some psychological delusion that we might define in psychiatric terms today? If someone these days claimed to find gold tablets with the true gospel written on it, what would we think? (Oh, wait, the Mormons already bought that one.) Or what about being inhabited by the souls of dead aliens (a la Scientology?) I see no reason to hold Genesis of the Gospels up to the standards of science, because I put no more credibility in them than Scientology. And if the Bible is more metaphor than fact, it still holds no relevance to my understanding of how life and the universe operate.

Comment #69089

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 12:47 PM (e)

Why is it always the Bible, the Bible, the Bible??? Could it be that ID is at its core a fundamentalist Christian political crusade? If ID is all about the science, why can’t everyone regardless of belief or lack thereof join in?

There is a smattering of other religious opponents to evolution. You just hear about the bible vs science all the time because in America there are 100 dumb fundy christians for every dumb fundy muslim, as a matter of population.

talkorigins.org/indexcc:

* CJ000: Vedic Creationism
o CJ001. Mankind has existed essentially unchanged for billions of years.
* CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
o CJ300: Creationism from individual tribes
+ CJ311. The 9,400-year-old Kennewick Man was an Umatilla ancestor.
* CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism
o CJ500: Qur’an Accuracy
+ CJ530. The Qur’an’s accuracy on scientific points shows overall accuracy.
# CJ531. The Qur’an speaks of an expanding universe.
# CJ533. The Qur’an describes human embryology accurately.

Because the bible was written by primitives, we don’t expect it to comport with modern science. We expect it to say things like diseases are caused by evil spirits and such and that’s what it says. Christians have a choice when they notice contradictions between that book and the real world. They can make special excuses that it doesn’t really say what it says, so there’s no conflict, or they can stick with it like Ken Ham and say science is wrong. There’s a schism in the atheist community about how to deal with the former. Some atheists think applauding them will reduce opposition to evolution. Other atheists think they should be criticised for still behaving irrationally. I don’t think I need to side strategically with the applauders, because I’m not worried about the long-term prospects of support for evolution. The more education and science people get, the less likely they are to be religious, and so the research community will strongly support evolution. Even in the drastic event that politics ruins evolutionary education in the US–something I don’t consider a real possibility–Europe and Asia will march on.

Comment #69097

Posted by Gorbe on January 9, 2006 1:07 PM (e)

And you miss the point of my response to Tulse and my original post. The point was that the original Bible is not in conflict with science even if interpreted literally. Yes, you read that correctly - even if interpreted literally, so long as it is translated correctly.

I laugh every time I read that. No doubt fundamentalist Muslim’s believe that the Koran advocates jihad and suicide bombing if only the Koran is “translated correctly.” Well, what experts should we rely on for this correct translation? Your’s?

And why do the correct experts have to be consulted at all? With such an important message as whether we spend eternity in pain or bliss, I’d like to think an Intelligent Being would have done a far better job of speaking for Herself in getting the message out.

Instead, we have to rely on a select few experts (certainly a minority) …. or more specifically we are required to choose the experts to rely on and then hope and pray we are right.

Comment #69101

Posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 1:18 PM (e)

Science demonstrably is different from religion in several ways, but one of the most interesting distinctions is that science converges, whereas religion diverges.

By this I mean that some new discovery or field of study may spawn a large number of scientific schools of thought; however, over time, as observations and experiments contribute to understanding, the number of differing ideas approaches one. Today, for instance, there’s not a wide variety of scientific opinions regarding the nature of combustion.

With religion, however, a novel teaching from a new teacher will begin as a single system of thought, but within two generations it will have split into several factions, often virulently hostile to each other. If the religion persists for a thousand years, the number of divergent sects may number in the tens of thousands. (Do you know how many major different kinds of Shi’ite Muslims there are?)

Withal in science, no one cares what some great luminary may believe; the focus is upon what that person has discovered. Since in most cases in religion “discovery” is impossible, the focus is upon belief and authoritative revelation.

Comment #69102

Posted by Gav on January 9, 2006 1:27 PM (e)

Larry Farfarman commented:

“I noticed the way you spelled “defence” — another non-American on this website?”

That’s the idea -

“It’s not that they’re wicked or naturally bad
It’s knowing they’re foreign that makes them so mad!”

He also commented:

“.. but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain”

Larry, you may, but why not take a break from posting and check your facts. Look up antidisestablishmentarianism in wiki; it won’t take 10 seconds to put yourself right.

Comment #69103

Posted by rdog29 on January 9, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

Heddle -

My point was that the only religious text whose compatibilty with evolution (and sometimes with cosmology) seems to be of concern is the Bible (in the USA at least). You would expand that to include all of science. So now we have to worry about Physcis, Chemistry, Meteorolgy, etc etc being compatible with the Bible.

But if science is to be “compatible” with religious teachings, then what makes the Bible the supreme authority? Why not the Book of Mormon? Why not the teachings of Rastafarianism? Why not those screwballs who committed group suicide a few years ago?

Who decides what religious text is the authority?

Somehow I don’t think the DI would smile on science being subordinated to, say, the Urantia book. No, only the Bible will do. So all this talk of “compatibility” kinda smacks of a religious (primarily fundamentalist Christian in the USA) movement, don’t ya think?

Comment #69104

Posted by blipey on January 9, 2006 1:32 PM (e)

Geez, Larry.

Did you really post several times saying “this is what I would have done to win the case.”? Then post saying that this case was unwinnable and you wouldn’t have taken it? You wonder why no one takes you seriously. Oh, and while you’re looking at your own thread history, contemplate in what ways it is similar to the DI’s propoganda history. Discuss. See if you can get this on Dembski’s final exam.

Comment #69108

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 1:43 PM (e)

Gav - you just wanted to say ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’ didn’t you?

Don’t expect Larry to understand our Geography.

Comment #69109

Posted by PvM on January 9, 2006 1:44 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge — who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time — has about ID?

Because said Judge was presented evidence from both sides and found that the ID side’s arguments did not match the facts.How long does one have to study ID to come to the inevitable realization that it is not science and much religion?

Larry wrote:

But with a different judge and different experts, it is conceivable that a different decision — or maybe even no decision ( on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion ) — would have been reached.

Why? Please explain what ID proponents could have done to better present their case?

Larry wrote:

Also, having different scientific experts might have made a difference. Furthermore, the judge did not get a broad range of opinions on ID, but only got the narrow range of opinions that the testifying scientific experts provided him.

Don’t forget the FTE and DI amicus briefs… Tell us why you consider the range of expert opinions to be ‘narrow’. Especially since all experts testified that ID was science and gave their reasons. The judge rejected their claims based on the presented evidence.

As to whether ID will be able to get away with ‘teach the controversy’ approach, history has shown that creationism failed to convince the judges. We shall see if the Cobb appeals court will understand the scientific vacuity of ID. Just because one hides the religious motivations, does not make it having a valid secular purpose. ID’s secular purpose is a sham and insincere.

Comment #69110

Posted by Flint on January 9, 2006 1:47 PM (e)

Michael Rathbun:

By this I mean that some new discovery or field of study may spawn a large number of scientific schools of thought; however, over time, as observations and experiments contribute to understanding, the number of differing ideas approaches one. Today, for instance, there’s not a wide variety of scientific opinions regarding the nature of combustion.

With religion, however, a novel teaching from a new teacher will begin as a single system of thought, but within two generations it will have split into several factions, often virulently hostile to each other. If the religion persists for a thousand years, the number of divergent sects may number in the tens of thousands.

This is a function of the final authority to which these very different disciplines ultimately appeal. In the case of science, the final authority is the actual evidence. Science converges because the universe is internally consistent. In the case of religion, the final authority is whose fiat declarations one chooses to believe. The ultimate resolution in religion is that the number of different doctrines equals the number of people holding to any doctrine.

In science, there’s only one way to resolve differences of opinion - by continuous data collection (and improvements in the methods of data collection). In religion, the only way to eliminate differences of opinion is to eliminate those who hold different opinions. In immediate terms, this means killing people. In today’s civilized society, this means indoctrinating them with the same beliefs young enough to maximize the probability that the training will “take” and set up.

Science to an important degree recognizes and ratifies the religious approach. That’s why we’re battling over high school biology curricula. In some important respects, respect for evidence is very much an acquired trait.

Comment #69114

Posted by Mike Rogers on January 9, 2006 1:58 PM (e)

This is a slight change of subject but I just realized why Dembski and the ID people claim the evidence for evolution doesn’t exist. I’m not sure if they really believe this, but I can see how they can pitch that argument to people who are largely ignorant about science. (Sorry to be so un-pc, but it is simply a fact about many ordinary, but otherwise reasonably intelligent, lay people.)

They are counting on the supposition that most lay people don’t understand the nature of scientific evidence. Most of what scientists view as supporting evidence for a theory involves data or observations confirming predictions or expectations based on the theory, but otherwise a priori improbable.

This is easily expressed in terms of Baye’s theorem, where the likelyhood of the whole set confirmed predictions of a theory, p(E|T), is 1 and the a priori probability of the theory, p(T), may be small but is still significantly larger than the a priori probability of the complete evidence, p(E), that is, of the complete set of predictions relative to random outcomes. This gives a large value of p(T|E)=p(E|T)P(T)/P(E), which is the subjective probability of the theory, given the evidence. One should be careful not to take this too seriously, numerically, in particular cases as, say, an epistemological argument, at least most of the time, since a priori probability assignments are subjective and therefore time-bound and sometimes too arbitrary to be very meaningful. However, it seems to express the intuitions upon which most plausible inferences are made by people and provides some degree of justification for those intuitions. This Bayesian intuition also appears to underly the concept of consciliance, although that may be slightly weaker confirmed predictions. But I think that conciliance can also by understood within the probabilistic/logical framework of Bayesian probabilities.

But, steering away from formalism, it should be enough to point out that these are exactly the same set of reasoning tools that we use for all of our probable inferences, such as when a detective investigates a crime or a jury (or TV new audience) decides the guilt or innocence of a defendent, often based largely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, “circumstantial evidence” is sometimes enough to convict someone of a crime in cases where such evidenct is considered strong, i.e., in cases where there is a good deal of consciliance between acknowledged facts and those that might be expected based on the hypothesis of guilt.

With this understanding of evidence, which most of us take for granted, there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution. But Dembski and other creationists seem to demand some kind of more direct evidence, something like the observation of a large mamallian species evolving to another species within a humanly observable time-span. This is analogous to demanding a witness to a crime instead of circumstantial evidence. Note, however, that the court-room analogy breaks down here because other types of evidence, that are not typically considered circumstantial, are also often considered definitive. Things like fingerprints or bloodstains, showing the defendent was at least present at scene of the crime, for instance, or shell casings matching a gun that belonged to the defendent. There are many analogies in the case for evolution as well, things like common genes, features and diseases, hard data such as carbon dating data, etc. A biologist could make this list a lot better than I. But the IDers and other creationists simply dismiss such evidence as irrelevant or wrong. I wonder if these social conservatives would do the same with the analogous evidence in a criminal case.

A couple of final notes: There actually is only a difference in degree between “hard” evidence and ordinary circumstantial evidence - there can almost always be alternative explanations for “hard evidence” - however the line is drawn because alternative explanations for facts of that sort are understood to be generically improbable (a priori). So on the whole, all of our intuitive probabilistic inferences appear to involve consciliance and predictive consistency of this informal Bayesian, or quasi-Bayesian sort. (I’m well aware that we actually use crude algorithms that give “good enough” solutions in common, or once common circumstances, so that cognitive psychologists might consider that statement naive. The phrase “informal quasi-Baysian” was a deliberate weasle intended to be sufficiently vague to cover real mental processes so I could state my point without getting diverted into those issues.)

Second, while there is a great deal in favor of evolution in terms of both explanatory power and evidence of the sort discussed above - a great many conscilant facts, if not outright confirmed predictions - ID offers nothing of the sort. It makes no predictions at all!!! If you were desparate, you could think of their design “inference” as a “prediction”, it could only be a prediction if you allowed for circular predictions. Other than their design “inference”, they are explicit about their conscious refusal to infer any specific predications about any facts of the natural world. This is why ID is not science. Science ties together disparate facts about the world. Sometimes they are connected by covering laws and sometimes under less rigid relationships. But good scientific theories make bold predictions beyond the context in which they were first infered or inspired. And they are predictions which can be wrong.

I recall Dembski somewhere made the innane comment that they don’t “have to provide” predictions with “the same ridiculous level of detail” that scientists have to provide. So they can explain the existence of everything and the particulars of literally nothing. Then, ID may be metaphysics, and you may judge it by whatever standards are deemed to apply there, but it not, and can not be science.

Comment #69115

Posted by Bob O'H on January 9, 2006 1:59 PM (e)

Gav wrote:

That’s the idea -

“It’s not that they’re wicked or naturally bad
It’s knowing they’re foreign that makes them so mad!”

Sorry, you’ll have to try harder: I recognised it (and I’m not even old enough). Another Hat, anyone?

Ah, them were t’days, when we thought we still had an empire.

Bob

Comment #69117

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 2:02 PM (e)

rdog29

My point was that the only religious text whose compatibilty with evolution (and sometimes with cosmology) seems to be of concern is the Bible (in the USA at least). You would expand that to include all of science. So now we have to worry about Physcis, Chemistry, Meteorolgy, etc etc being compatible with the Bible.
But if science is to be “compatible” with religious teachings, then what makes the Bible the supreme authority? Why not the Book of Mormon? Why not the teachings of Rastafarianism? Why not those screwballs who committed group suicide a few years ago?
Who decides what religious text is the authority?
Somehow I don’t think the DI would smile on science being subordinated to, say, the Urantia book. No, only the Bible will do. So all this talk of “compatibility” kinda smacks of a religious (primarily fundamentalist Christian in the USA) movement, don’t ya think?

No we do not have to “worry” about them, physics etc. We did, for a while, when the bible taught that our universe had a beginning and Hoyle, Einstein, Eddington, et. al. taught that it didn’t. Then we had a major league discrepancy. And we know who prevailed in that debate.

As for those other books, once again it is up to their champions to decide whether consistency with science is important. I don’t care at all, which is why if a Rastafanarian claims that his sacred writings are consistent (or inconsistent) with science—that’s fine with me, I don’t care and wouldn’t engage. The fact that atheists do engage with those us who claim that Bible is consistent with science, the fact that there are websites and books devoted to the subject, the fact that people will parrot the same alleged discrepancies, all this demonstrates my claim that they do, in fact care deeply—because biblical inconsistency is very important to many atheists.

I don’t understand the question “Who decides what religious text is the authority?” That is not an issue—the question is scientific consistency. This can be addressed independently of whether one takes the Bible as the inerrant word of God. It either is consistent in what it says about science, or it isn’t, regardless of whether you view it as a holy book.

As for the DI, I do not know what would or would not make them smile. You may be right that it is of greater concern in the US as opposed to a post-Christian Europe. As for “fundamentalist” that term, like “creationist” and “darwinist”, gets used on PT without ever being defined.

Comment #69118

Posted by AC on January 9, 2006 2:12 PM (e)

Corkscrew wrote:

Now, I find this interesting cos I’m currently studying QM and there’s a very obvious question that arises: if God is omniscient - sees everything - then why isn’t he continually collapsing the wavefunction? Seems like a quantum universe + an omniscient God would behave exactly like a classical universe.

“Serious” theists would probably reconcile this by saying that God sees the universe without interacting with it. Nevermind how, of course; it’s God!

I have, however, heard “less-serious” theists claim that God is the only reason any wavefunctions ever collapse. Honestly, God can be wedged in just about anywhere with no effect at all.

Comment #69119

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 2:12 PM (e)

Mr. Heddle said:

It either is consistent in what it says about science, or it isn’t, regardless of whether you view it as a holy book.

Note the moving of goalposts. First, the point was whether the literal reading of the Bible was compatible with Evolution; then, it was the “literal mod points 1-5” reading; now it’s “consisten[cy] in what it says about science”.

Wake up, Mr. Heddle. Even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire‘s “literal mod points 1-5” reading is consistent in what it says about science!

Comment #69120

Posted by yellow fatty bean on January 9, 2006 2:13 PM (e)

Biblical inconsistency is not important to me, until certain folks use the Bible to try and push pseudo-scientific gibberish like CreatioIDism on unsuspecting high school students.

Then….game on, you nutjobs.

Comment #69121

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 2:14 PM (e)

Comment #69087 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 12:39 PM
1.Behe is probably the only biologist the ID movement have. He did not say ID was like astrology. Rather he said that the way scientific standards would have to be changed in order to include ID they would also then allow astrology in.

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID – among these, there must be some who are qualified to testify about it in court. A lesser-known or unknown scientist who would not say that ID is like astrology would be preferable to Behe. Whatever he said, it was equivalent to saying that ID is like astrology. ID can be taught without changing scientific standards – just teach it as a criticism of evolution theory.

2.Do you have a problem with British posters? No other colonialists seem to object. Creationism is taught in some British schools Larry. One of the few statements you have made that is correct. However creationism is taught in religious education. Evolution is taught in biology classes.

We’ve been through this before. Creationism is taught as science in some British government-supported schools. See “Creationists taking over state schools,” —-
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm

Comment #69122

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 2:16 PM (e)

Okay - so no-one on the Panda’s Thumb defines ‘fundamentalism’?:

..lets put that right for you Mr Heddle:

Fundamentalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.

In some ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents’ religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one’s religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable.

… would seem to a fairly accurate description of yourself Mr Heddle

Comment #69123

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 2:21 PM (e)

We’ve been through this before. Creationism is taught as science in some British government-supported schools. See “Creationists taking over state schools,” ——

- yes we have Larry - but you’re avoiding the responses to the fallacy you are trying to perpetuate here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/kudos_to_the_nc.html#comment-67173

why did you run away if you thought you had a good case? -

don’t answer here, answer on the appropriate thread….

Comment #69124

Posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 2:22 PM (e)

Flint wrote:

Science to an important degree recognizes and ratifies the religious approach.

This is a mystifying remark. What aspects of religion are ratified by science? (I’m sure that when the “Out of Africa” v. “Multi-regional” collision is finally resolved, it won’t be because Milford Wolpoff was the more persuasive speaker, or because the OoAists got the ear of the King and caused the opposing partisans to be exiled or imprisoned.)

In some important respects, respect for evidence is very much an acquired trait.

Indeed. Years ago I was of the “Science is also a religion” school, but never carried that notion to its logical conclusions until long after my thinking had altered radically. Had I done so, it might have accelerated the change. Properly countered, the “science is just another religion” argument is dangerous to its proponents.

(And incidentally, lumping ID with astrology is an insult to astrology – it makes eminently testable predictions, and therefore is infinitely more “scientific” than ID. The fact that these predictions are easily demonstrated to be false is a different issue.)

Comment #69125

Posted by KL on January 9, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

“Christians have a choice when they notice contradictions between that book and the real world. They can make special excuses that it doesn’t really say what it says, so there’s no conflict, or they can stick with it like Ken Ham and say science is wrong.”

Or perhaps there is a third choice; that human spirituality lies outside the physical world, that mysteries such as love cannot be distilled down to measurements, and that the Bible offers ONE moral tradition, a series of stories and metaphors that teach us how to care for others and to find meaning. I am not a spiritual person, but many in my family are (I envy them sometimes) and I don’t think that religion should be used to control others but to inspire us to help others. I don’t need (or want) science to justify or deny that. Trying to find “God” or whatever other mystery you want in a bacteria flagellum reduces it down to a physical idea, and something very important is lost. Religion should free us to look beyond the physical but not prevent us from learning about the physical world in all of its complexity. By over analyzing the Bible word for word, are we not losing sight of the bigger picture?

It should be obvious that I am not a Bible scholar. However, it used to frustrate me in college when in English we never looked at literature or poetry from a sociological or historical angle. We just simply analyzed the work, line by line, word by word. I know that this has value, but it seemed to miss an important point-that literature reflects the human condition, and is a window into the mind of the writer.

I came to my own conclusion that fundamentalism is in itself a political movement; an attempt to control the hearts, minds and behavior of people.

Comment #69126

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

Comment #69104 posted by blipey on January 9, 2006 01:32 PM

Geez, Larry.

Did you really post several times saying “this is what I would have done to win the case.”? Then post saying that this case was unwinnable and you wouldn’t have taken it? You wonder why no one takes you seriously.

All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case.

The Cobb County school board did not make the big mistakes that the Dover area school board made, and it looks like the Cobb County school board has a chance of winning its appeal of the ban on the evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers.

Comment #69128

Posted by Flint on January 9, 2006 2:31 PM (e)

Michael Rathbun:

This is a mystifying remark. What aspects of religion are ratified by science?

No, I didn’t say religion, I said the religious approach of “snag their minds while they’re young, and orient them in the desired direction.” Young minds can be trained to the most bizarre faiths combined with being 100% output and 0% input. OR, young minds can be trained to be open to evidence, to draw conclusions AFTER rather than before examining the evidence, to regard conclusions as tentative and conditional. So science agrees with religion, in this sense, that the battle is over minds.

(And incidentally, not being knowledgeable about astrology, I’m not sure I understand what “predictions” it makes. I’ve read a few newspaper horoscopes (the one-size-fits-all “predictions”) and found them to be so hazy that nearly anthing that happens can be stretched to qualify. To me, those are NOT predictions, they are bafflegab. What am I missing?)

Comment #69129

Posted by AC on January 9, 2006 2:36 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

As for those other books, once again it is up to their champions to decide whether consistency with science is important. I don’t care at all, which is why if a Rastafanarian claims that his sacred writings are consistent (or inconsistent) with science—that’s fine with me, I don’t care and wouldn’t engage. The fact that atheists do engage with those us who claim that Bible is consistent with science, the fact that there are websites and books devoted to the subject, the fact that people will parrot the same alleged discrepancies, all this demonstrates my claim that they do, in fact care deeply—because biblical inconsistency is very important to many atheists.

I reiterate, the number of refutations of Rastafarian science consistency is directly proportional to the number of people claiming that Rastafarianism is consistent with science. Not many of those, are there?

Especially considering the role of religion - specifically Christianity - in American history, one wonders how much you will ignore in order to push the “evolutionists want to get rid of religion!” meme.

Comment #69130

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 9, 2006 2:39 PM (e)

The Maroon, who recently took up an entire thread (and half of another) telling us all the things that, in his tiny mind, the judge did wrong, now concedes the case was probably unwinnable regardless of which judge heard it:

Under the circumstances, I don’t think that anything could have been done to win the case.

Schmuck.

Comment #69131

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 2:41 PM (e)

Dean Morrison,

Really, it requires “literal” interpretation of the texts? Well Aureola chides me for not being literal enough in my proofs of biblical consistency. Ergo I am not a fundamentalist. Also, I feel no alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture. I feel quite at home in the NASCAR Nation. Ergo I am not a fundamentalist.

The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one’s religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

Here are some Christian “types” who affirm such a definition biblical inerrancy:

Jerry Falwell type Christians
Tim LeHaye type Christians
Reformed Christians (Calvinists)
Roman Catholics

They have extremely different theologies. If they are all fundamentalist, then Ken Miller is a fundamentalist (that is, if he is in obedience to the teachings of the church of which he claims membership), and the only thing “fundamentalist” really means is conservative.

Before you argue that Catholics do not affirm inerrancy I suggest you look at their canonical writings and the pronouncements of their ecumenical councils, not the viewpoint of this or that Catholic regardless of his rank. A bishop’s views are not binding on the faithful, only official dogma is binding. While they believe (or accommodate the belief) that the Genesis account need not to be taken literally, they affirm that Genesis is not in error–but rather a given interpretation might be in error.

Comment #69132

Posted by Caol Clouser on January 9, 2006 2:41 PM (e)

Aureola,

You would be right about Biblical interpretation if it were done on an ad hoc basis, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes allegorically, sometimes sarcastically or whatever, without ryme or reason. What David is saying, and he is absolutely correct, is that there are sensible rules. I would summarize those rules for simplicity’s sake as follows: Interpret literally except where an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation would be expected to know to interpret otherwise.

Randy,

The fact that no Hebrew Biblical documents older than the dead sea scrolls have YET been found, does not at all mean those writings first appeared at that time. Quite the contrary. Those revered (by the Essenes) writings must have been very old by the time they were recorded in the scrolls. We find the Talmudists engaged in conversation and debate about their oral tradition pertaining to the Bible, a tradition they cite as going back to over one thousand years. And other archeological finds establish many other aspects of the Hebrew Bible, going back centuries prior to the dead sea scrolls.

Be that as it may, when I use the term “original” I mean “as opposed to translations”. I think reasonable people everywhere can agree that original documents of any type are always more authentic, more faithful to the intent of the author, than translations, especially multi-generational translations.

Comment #69135

Posted by AC on January 9, 2006 2:51 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

A lesser-known or unknown scientist who would not say that ID is like astrology would be preferable to Behe.

Oh, you mean a liar. Glad we straightened that out.

ID can be taught without changing scientific standards — just teach it as a criticism of evolution theory.

ID is not science without changing the definition of science in such a way that astrology would also fit - this is what Behe said, and he is correct. Thus ID cannot be taught as a scientific criticism of evolution, i.e. side-by-side in a science class.

Unless you’ve heard the long-awaited scientific theory of ID. If so, please enlighten us.

I shan’t hold my breath though.

Comment #69137

Posted by Jason on January 9, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that ‘algebra’, algorithm’, and ‘cypher’ are from Arabic.

Some more “als” from chemistry that are Arabic in origin:

alchemy
alkane
alkene
alcohol
alkali
alembic (old distillation glassware)
alqeada (just kidding)

Comment #69139

Posted by blipey on January 9, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

From Larry the Troll:

All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case.

My irony meter spewed cooling fluid all over me; I have to go clean up. Looks like another possible Dembski take-home discussion question.

Comment #69140

Posted by João Carlos on January 9, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

I think all this discussion about the bible fun. Mostly because the bible as a writen book had “evolution” itself (it changed over the time, so the bible “evolved”).

See “documentary hypothesis” at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)

“The hypothesis proposes that the Torah was composed from four earlier source texts, which were combined by a redactor (referred to as R).

J - the Jahwist. J describes a humanlike God called Yahweh and has its main interest reflecting Judah and the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
E - the Elohist. E describes a humanlike God initially called El (which is sometimes Elohim according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), and called Yahweh after the burning bush, and has its main interest reflecting biblical Israel and the Shiloh priesthood. E has a moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
P - the Priestly source. P describes a distant and unmerciful (but just) God sometimes referred to as Elohim and El Shaddai. P partly duplicates J and E, but altering details to suit P’s opinion, and also consists of most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood and King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an interest in lists and dates.
D - the Deuteronomist. D consists entirely of most of Deuteronomy. D probably also wrote the Deteronomistic history (Josh, Judg, 1 & 2 Sam, 1 & 2 Kgs). D has its interest reflecting the Shiloh priesthood and King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to P, but in a different literary style.”

By the way, the Flood is a summerian mythos, you will find a better account at “Gilgamesh”, the bible account appear be a resumeé from the more complete summerian account. Not surprisingly the Babel account appear refer to a summerian city, Babylon (greek variant of akkadian Babilu), that had a huge ziggurat (other think that Erech was “Babel”, because Erech had a greater ziggurat; both cities had a lof of diferent languages as any modern metropolis). And “Eden” is itself a summerian name (eden = plain) and the seven days account for the creation mythos (there are two accounts at the Genesis book) problably come from the chaldean astrology (FIRST DAY, Sun: creation of light; SECOND DAY, Moon: holds the heavens up from the Earth;THIRD DAY, Mars: the ocean is fought back; FOURTH DAY, Mercury: the lore of “signs and seasons”; FIFTH DAY, Jupiter: all living things created; SIXTH DAY, Venus: the living things learn to couple with each other; SEVENTH DAY, Saturn: the gods rest; you can note that the semitic people not knew the planet Mercury and that Mercury was discovered by the chaldean astologers).

So, why we need make so much mess about some summerian mythos and some chaldean astrology?

Sorry my bad english, my native language is portuguese.

Comment #69142

Posted by Russell on January 9, 2006 2:58 PM (e)

I feel quite at home in the NASCAR Nation. Ergo I am not a fundamentalist.

[guffaw]
Somehow, I think you failed to understand the gist of the definition that Dean Morrison offered. Not too surprisingly, you appear to have read it too literally.

Comment #69144

Posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 3:02 PM (e)

Flint wrote:

No, I didn’t say religion, I said the religious approach of “snag their minds while they’re young, and orient them in the desired direction.”

Ah, that makes good sense, although I would attribute that to the culture surrounding thoughtful scientists rather than to the process of science itself. And in my own case, some astute and effective teachers in my early life inculcated an understanding of the scientific method that eventually paid off considerably.

(And incidentally, not being knowledgeable about astrology, I’m not sure I understand what “predictions” it makes. I’ve read a few newspaper horoscopes (the one-size-fits-all “predictions”) and found them to be so hazy that nearly anthing that happens can be stretched to qualify. To me, those are NOT predictions, they are bafflegab. What am I missing?)

Newspaper horoscopes??! Bah, mere pandering and piffling exploitative dabblers! Real astrology is much, much more complex and explicit. I know this because my late uncle took a course from one of the Rosicrucian sects, based upon Max Heindel’s *koff* seminal work, Simplified Scientific Astrology, a title rich in fascinating clashes; I inherited the book when rather young, and spent quite some time reading it. My copy is now lost, deplorably, but the full text is available online at rosicrucian.com.

Astrology, as serious and devoted practitioners do it, produces a wealth of detailed, specific, testable statements about the character, behavior and fate of any particular individual, given the exact circumstances of birth (e.g. time to the nearest second &c). A detailed natal chart, depending upon the zeal of the practitioner and the purse of the client, can be voluminous.

Note that believing clients of devoted practitioners almost never avail themselves of multitudinous opportunities to test the merit of the product they have purchased. James Randi’s web site has some interesting data, as do other skeptical sources.

Comment #69145

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 3:04 PM (e)

Posted by Caol Clouser on January 9, 2006 02:41 PM (e) (s)

Aureola,

You would be right about Biblical interpretation if it were done on an ad hoc basis, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes allegorically, sometimes sarcastically or whatever, without ryme or reason. What David is saying, and he is absolutely correct, is that there are sensible rules. I would summarize those rules for simplicity’s sake as follows: Interpret literally except where an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation would be expected to know to interpret otherwise.

Randy,

The fact that no Hebrew Biblical documents older than the dead sea scrolls have YET been found, does not at all mean those writings first appeared at that time. Quite the contrary. Those revered (by the Essenes) writings must have been very old by the time they were recorded in the scrolls. We find the Talmudists engaged in conversation and debate about their oral tradition pertaining to the Bible, a tradition they cite as going back to over one thousand years. And other archeological finds establish many other aspects of the Hebrew Bible, going back centuries prior to the dead sea scrolls.

Be that as it may, when I use the term “original” I mean “as opposed to translations”. I think reasonable people everywhere can agree that original documents of any type are always more authentic, more faithful to the intent of the author, than translations, especially multi-generational translations.

Carol,
Do you not consider it odd that God would only speak to a very small group of people and a long time ago?

Surely the creator of the entire universe would present evidence to all people.

I find it objectionable to state that only a few individuals can know the mind of God and the rest of us should just slavishly obey.

Comment #69149

Posted by Raging Bee on January 9, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

Larry is now reduced to writing:

If I had been forced to represent the defendants, I would have advised them to avoid the mistakes I enumerated.

This sounds depressingly similar to the excuse used by Marxists to explain away the total failure of every Communist regime ever created: yes, the USSR was a total failure, but it wasn’t really “True Communism,” they were led astray by Stalin’s mistakes. The next revolution, in China, will be better, trust us, that Little Red Book makes so much sense…okay, China was a failure, but our ideology is still valid; let’s look to Cuba for a better example…okay, Cuba sucks too, let’s all wave a banner for Ho Chih Minh and Pol Pot…oh dear, that was a hideous fiasco – but the Sandinistas will vindicate our ideology…

Give it up, Larry. Or perhaps I should say, admit you’ve given up and stop pretending you haven’t. The only people you’re fooling are the ones who want to be fooled, and they don’t tend to hang around here.

Comment #69150

Posted by Russell on January 9, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

Larry F wrote:

All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case.

Oh, well! If it’s within your power to change facts, why not just change the fact of evolution? That would certainly solve a lot of problems for you!

Comment #69151

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 9, 2006 3:11 PM (e)

This could be useful for Intelligent Design Creationism court cases:
Sin bin for rogue witnesses

Sin bin for rogue witnesses
Adam Cresswell, Health editor
January 10, 2006

A SPORT-STYLE system of red and yellow cards is being considered to deal with rogue expert witnesses whose eccentric or irrational views are skewing medical negligence cases….

Comment #69154

Posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 3:14 PM (e)

Last comment about astrology, I promise:

Astrology actually would not be properly inserted into an astronomy course as a putative “competing theory”, since it actually says almost nothing about the nature and history of the stars and planets themselves. It would actually need to be inserted into biology, sociology and psychology courses, since its main thrust is “the effect of heavenly bodies on Earthly bodies”, more or less.

In fact, one might need to “teach the controversy” in those areas where astrology and ID might overlap to some extent.

Comment #69156

Posted by dre on January 9, 2006 3:16 PM (e)

AC said:

David Heddle wrote:

As for those other books, once again it is up to their champions to decide whether consistency with science is important. I don’t care at all, which is why if a Rastafanarian [sic] claims that his sacred writings are consistent (or inconsistent) with science—that’s fine with me, I don’t care and wouldn’t engage. The fact that atheists do engage with those us who claim that Bible is consistent with science, the fact that there are websites and books devoted to the subject, the fact that people will parrot the same alleged discrepancies, all this demonstrates my claim that they do, in fact care deeply—because biblical inconsistency is very important to many atheists.

I reiterate, the number of refutations of Rastafarian science consistency is directly proportional to the number of people claiming that Rastafarianism is consistent with science. Not many of those, are there?

This is a point that irritates me often with regards to Mr. Heddle, and AC has a wonderful point. Mr. Heddle has claimed before that atheists deeply care about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. He seems to be in deep denial about the fact that scientists and “evolutionists” have to argue about such nonsense because Christians keep bringing it into the house, where such debated is usually unwanted. I haven’t searched, and don’t plan to, but can Mr. Heddle present a single occurrence of a group of atheists spontaneously debating the scientific accuracy of the Bible without first being provoked by Christians? I suspect said debate would NEVER arise on this particular blog were it not for the antagonistic intrusion of the likes of Heddle (yes, Mr. Heddle’s posts may be calmly worded, but their intent is clear) and Clouser, et al. We could be enjoying discussion about evolution instead.

We don’t care about your holy book, Mr. Heddle, no matter how badly you want us to.

Comment #69159

Posted by Raging Bee on January 9, 2006 3:19 PM (e)

Comment #68898 was way out of line. Carol may be wrong (in fact, I’m almost sure she is), and as far as I can see, she has yet to back up her general assertrions with any specific instances; but calling her a troll is uncalled-for. She is, at the very least, more honest and less obnoxious than Larry. Not that that’s saying a lot…

Comment #69160

Posted by improvius on January 9, 2006 3:21 PM (e)

I think reasonable people everywhere can agree that original documents of any type are always more authentic, more faithful to the intent of the author, than translations, especially multi-generational translations.

I suppose you could say that these “multi-generational translations” of the word of God have been subject to random (and non-random) mutations. Hmmm… I wonder why God didn’t maintain translation approval rights on His material?

Comment #69162

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 3:23 PM (e)

Mr. Heddle:

did I chide you for not being literal enough? Where?

No, I’m afraid you’re wrong again. I simply pointed to the fact that “literal”, if one does not adopt the Heddleian habit of playing tricks with words, means “literal”, not “literal-when-I-want-but-not-when-I-don’t”.

Ms. Clouser:

Interpret literally except where an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation would be expected to know to interpret otherwise.

Thank you, Ms. Clouser, for your clarification.

And when “an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation” gets more educated, and learns more science, and therefore starts to “interpret otherwise” parts that previously were thought to be literal… what happens?

And when the illiterate shepherds of Bronze Age Palestine studied more, came out of the Bronze Age and into written history, and then into the Middle Ages, and then the Modern Age, and refined the Scientific Method to the point where they found out that what they thought was 100% unadulterated God’s Word™ was actually a blend of metaphors and poetry and received wisdom… what happened?

Comment #69163

Posted by rdog29 on January 9, 2006 3:25 PM (e)

Heddle -

So what you’re saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you don’t care about science’s “compatibilty” with any religious text besides the Bible.

OK, that’s fine - that’s your religious opinion.

But why should science necessarily have to be “compatible” with the Bible (or any other religious text)? Would you consult a chemistry textbook if you needed comforting over the death of a loved one? I doubt it. Then why look to a religious text for validation of phyiscal or biological theory?

Why the conflation of empirical knowledge with moral guidance?

Comment #69164

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 3:25 PM (e)

Stephen Elliot: don’t forget that Dawkins has his program ‘Religion - the root of all evil? on C$ in the UK right now!!

Comment #69167

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 3:32 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 03:25 PM (e) (s)

Stephen Elliot: don’t forget that Dawkins has his program ‘Religion - the root of all evil? on C$ in the UK right now!!

Was that a typo?
If not I don’t understand.
About to channel hop.

Comment #69169

Posted by Jason on January 9, 2006 3:33 PM (e)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/microevolution_in_action.html

In college I learned quite a bit about speciation in various evolutionary biology courses. The problem is, as this indicates, speciation just means reproductive isolation (“a population stop mating with others”). This doesn’t mean you have observed the origin of something truly new. All they observed was that two bird populations migrated at different times so they didn’t mate anymore. No big deal.

Yeah, speciation is observed. No big deal.

I previsouly wrote a post explaining why viral evolution doesn’t entail the origin of any new genetic information, and why it really isn’t an impressive example of evolution! The feared evolution of the Avian flu essentially entails the swapping of pre-existing genes to produce a new virus composed of pre-existing genes.

No new inormation here. Just a new virus.

This is evolution, but not a very impressive example of such.

WTF?

I guess my back pain is an example of intelligent design, just not a very impressive one.

WOW!

Comment #69170

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 3:35 PM (e)

Dean,
Found it….CH4

Comment #69172

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 3:46 PM (e)

dre,

I haven’t searched, and don’t plan to, but can Mr. Heddle present a single occurrence of a group of atheists spontaneously debating the scientific accuracy of the Bible without first being provoked by Christians?

What would you accept as evidence? Websites devoted to the subject of the incompatibility of science and the bible? They are not responding to someone’s provocation, they are making a decision to go out of their way demonstrate the bible’s scientific illiteracy. Or would you argue that the owners of those sites must have, at some point, been provoked? If so, there is nothing, I suspect, that you would accept as a legitimate occurrence. Regardless of how spontaneous, you could argue that the person must have been provoked.

Why is provoking an issue? If a Rastafanarian “provokes” me by claiming his book is scientifically inerrant–I won’t respond because I simply don’t care. Atheists, on the other hand, readily respond to such claims about the bible. Sorry, the evidence is clear that you really do care that the bible simply must be incompatible with science.

rdog29,

But why should science necessarily have to be “compatible” with the Bible (or any other religious text)? Would you consult a chemistry textbook if you needed comforting over the death of a loved one? I doubt it. Then why look to a religious text for validation of phyiscal or biological theory?

That’s a fair question. I don’t look to the bible for what it teaches regarding science. However, if it does say something about science (which isn’t much), then my claim is what it does say is correct.

Comment #69173

Posted by Sciencefan on January 9, 2006 3:48 PM (e)

Looks like the IDiots over at TelicThoughts have taken a page from the Dembski playbook. They are now banning people outright for posting polite but dissenting opinions, claiming these posters are really “trolls”.

The latest action stems from a blog by Steve Petermann, a computer science guy with no training in biology who claims (surprise!) that his engineering analysis shows ToE to be impossible. He is making the same typical creationist claims (i.e. “Darwinism states that things evolve by blind chance”), and has deleted / banned those who politely pointed out his glaring errors.

Seems the ID guys just can’t figure out that censorship and banning will only hurt their cause.

Comment #69178

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 3:56 PM (e)

Great line from the Dawkins documentary :

“We’re all atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed; it’s just that atheists like me go one step further”.

I can’t see them ever showing this in America without a huge outcry - here it’ll be shown without anyone taking much notice (or at least get less attention than George Galloway on ‘Celebrity Big Brother) - part 2 next week.

(Sorry C4 of course Steve - only just noticed the typo)

Comment #69179

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

Mr./Dr.? Heddle,
I can’t understand why you would believe the bible to be inerrant.
Are the writings and experiences of bronze/iron and stone age people more relevant than your own?

Comment #69180

Posted by j-dog on January 9, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

Perhaps a techo-geek fan of PT could get in touch with our site creators and help to automatically re-route any post from Larry, Heddle and Ms. Clouse to another part of the Panda anatomy? Since their ideas and comments so often seem to be pulled from their fundaments and after all they are fundamentalists, perhaps the Panda’s Arse might be an appropriate title.

Comment #69181

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 4:03 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 03:56 PM (e) (s)

Great line from the Dawkins documentary :

“We’re all atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed; it’s just that atheists like me go one step further”.

I can’t see them ever showing this in America without a huge outcry - here it’ll be shown without anyone taking much notice (or at least get less attention than George Galloway on ‘Celebrity Big Brother) - part 2 next week.

(Sorry C4 of course Steve - only just noticed the typo)

Hehe,
got to see it anyway. I liked it. The only thing I disagreed with was making out all religious people to be akin to fundamentalists.

Personally I believe in God (not quite the fundy version though) yet prefer the (virtual) company of atheists to fundamentalists.

As far as I am concerned it is the organised fundamentalist religious movements that are causing the problems. Not reasonable theists.

Comment #69182

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 4:06 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott

Mr./Dr.? Heddle,
I can’t understand why you would believe the bible to be inerrant.
Are the writings and experiences of bronze/iron and stone age people more relevant than your own?

It’s Dr–if you actually care. (Your first sentence, I gather, is just a statement.) If I understand your question correctly, then it is because the biblical writers were divinely inspired.

Comment #69184

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 4:11 PM (e)

Dr. Heddle,
Actually I do care. I am not anti-religion. I just see no reason to treat the bible as inerrant. I would be interested in a theological conversation/argument. But it would probably be better to do it on AtBC.

Comment #69186

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 4:17 PM (e)

David Heddle spots Emily, the social worker:

David: “You hypocrite! You care deeply about heroin.”
Emily: “Huh?”
David: “Heroin is very important to you.”
Emily: “Well, that’s kind of a vague statement, isnt’ it?
David: “Heroin is very important to you. You put up webpages telling people not to use it. You argue with junkies about whether it’s good.”
Emily: “Well, yes, I did those things.”
David: Like I said. All you social workers care deeply about heroin.”
Emily: “You’re a dumbass.”

Comment #69187

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 4:17 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 03:56 PM (e) (s)

Great line from the Dawkins documentary :

How soon it deteriorates.
From that excellent Dawkins programe we now have it followed by celebrity big brother. The contrast is amazing!

Comment #69188

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

I don’t agree with Heddle that Catholics qualify as ‘fundamentalists’ as in his opinion they follow an unswerving literal interpretation of the Bible. They do seem to be able to be persuaded that their interpretion might be wrong - and even apologised to Galileo. Can’t see the fundies apologising for anything - let alone that that Darwin fella might have been right all along.

Doesn’t mean that I don’t have problems with Catholicism though - The Popes ‘infallible’ views on contraception and the use of condoms in HIV-riddled Africa is something I with which I have a problem - ‘reasonable theist’ or not. At least guys like you and Ken Millar are rational though Steve - and probably a lot more fun to sit down and have a chat over a pint with; than the frothing at the mouth trolls we get here.

More info on the Dawkins documentary here:

‘The Root of all evil’

Comment #69191

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 04:19 PM (e) (s)

I don’t agree with Heddle that Catholics qualify as ‘fundamentalists’ as in his opinion they follow an unswerving literal interpretation of the Bible. They do seem to be able to be persuaded that their interpretion might be wrong - and even apologised to Galileo. Can’t see the fundies apologising for anything - let alone that that Darwin fella might have been right all along.

Doesn’t mean that I don’t have problems with Catholicism though - The Popes ‘infallible’ views on contraception and the use of condoms in HIV-riddled Africa is something I with which I have a problem - ‘reasonable theist’ or not. At least guys like you and Ken Millar are rational though Steve - and probably a lot more fun to sit down and have a chat over a pint with; than the frothing at the mouth trolls we get here.

It had better be “Real Ale” though. Or I will get all fundy and preachy.

Comment #69192

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott,

Well, in a nutshell because the bible makes very lofty self-referential claims, if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies –and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real. That is why I want to believe the bible is inerrant. Why I actually believe it is inerrant is much more complicated.

Dean Morrison,

Dis you misread or are you purposely mischaracterizing what I wrote? I never said that the Catholics follow an unswerving literal interpretation (neither do I.) I said, apropos your wikipedia definition of fundamentalism, which included in part:

The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one’s religious texts are infallible and historically accurate

that the Roman Catholic Church affirms, magisterially, the inerrancy of scripture. She does. So by that definition Catholics including Ken Miller (those who affirm the teachings of their own church) are fundamentalists.

The fact that Rome apologized to Galileo is irrelvant. It is not an admission that the bible contains error, it is an admission those who (without biblical support–it wasn’t actually worse than a bad interpretation) demanded that the earth be at the center of the cosmos.

As for beer, I like Coors or Iron City.

Comment #69194

Posted by improvius on January 9, 2006 4:40 PM (e)

Dr. Heddle wrote:

Atheists, on the other hand, readily respond to such claims about the bible. Sorry, the evidence is clear that you really do care that the bible simply must be incompatible with science.

You’re over-generalizing here. I’m sure there are a few people out there who “really do care that the bible simply must be incompatible with science”, but extrapolating this to include all or even a majority of atheists is just silly. The fact of the matter is that even today Christian theology dominates our (USA) culture. It is nearly impossible for a person to have grown up in this country without being exposed to evangelical Christians at some point in their lives. Can it really be a surprise if there are some people who, for whatever reasons, have a strong negative reaction to the bible? These are the same people who care strongly enough to attack the bible without immediate provocation.

I think the rest of us just react whenever we see blatant instances of BS, be it of religious origin or otherwise. The notion that the world is full of atheists plotting to destroy Christianity is a paranoid delusion.

Comment #69195

Posted by Alan Fox on January 9, 2006 4:40 PM (e)

Panda’s Arse might be an appropriate title.

Seconded.

Comment #69198

Posted by Moses on January 9, 2006 4:46 PM (e)

Comment #69126

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 02:26 PM (e) (s)

All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case.

The Cobb County school board did not make the big mistakes that the Dover area school board made, and it looks like the Cobb County school board has a chance of winning its appeal of the ban on the evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers.

That’s called fraud and/or perjury depending on when it happens and can get you jailed. So, what you’re saying is that you’re more than willing to bear false-witness and to deny God?

Both of which are sins. One of which is a crime.

Comment #69199

Posted by RupertG on January 9, 2006 4:47 PM (e)

One of the pleasures (there have to be some) of being addicted to this debate even though I’m far away in the UK is that it’s educational. In particular, the business of ID being the same order of thinking as astrology has been enlightening – and here I must thank my partner, who’s an expert in early modern Scottish history and takes quite an interest in current creationist/ID happenings.

It turns out that in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, ideas like demonology, astrology and alchemy were indeed thought of by rational people who considered themselves part of the Enlightenment as being equally as valid as scientific ideas as astronomy, chemistry and physics (with apologies for using modern terms for ideas that had not been so differentiated then). Demonology in particular was significant, as people were frequently tried, convicted and executed for witchcraft - the evidence for which had to be compatible with contemporary legal thought. For a while, demonology worked by collecting people’s reports of what had happened – “Sure, she was asleep next to her husband in Pitenweem on the night that the cow was cursed, but the Devil left a double behind while she flew to Aberdour and appeared to me while casting her spell” – and that was evidence enough.

Eventually, though, the lawyers grew uncomfortable with this. There was literally no defence against this sort of accusation, and as the idea that proof should be empirically tested grew the limitations of relying on personal statements became apparent. In the end, witchcraft was never disproved as a legal phenomenon – but it could never be proven either, and the lawyers refused to prosecute the cases. At the same time, the non-empirical traditions fell away from the corpus of scientific thought: it’s intriguing to speculate about how law and science cross-fertilised at the time, as it was quite in order for people to maintain parallel specialisations and a self-respecting enlightenment thinker would pride themselves of being abreast of all developments whether they were nominally medic, lawyer or cleric. That’s something we’ve lost, with certain noble exceptions.

The parallels with Dover are compelling - but it cannot be denied that the highest traditions of law (where I’d place constitutional issues) are entirely resonant with those of the Enlightenment. There is now no defence of God or the Devil in the courtroom, so perhaps ID’s proponents should not be surprised that their special pleadings find no echo.

R

Comment #69201

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 4:49 PM (e)

Posted by Alan Fox on January 9, 2006 04:40 PM (e) (s)

Panda’s Arse might be an appropriate title.

Seconded.

Nah,
It is best to let creationists post and let lurkers see how they are rebutted.

Otherwise PT might start to look Dembski’ist.

Comment #69203

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 9, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

Or maybe, in the interest of our younger readers, Panda’s Rump, er, Panda’s Rumpus Room…

Comment #69210

Posted by the dictionary on January 9, 2006 5:04 PM (e)

Comment #68898 was way out of line. Carol may be wrong (in fact, I’m almost sure she is), and as far as I can see, she has yet to back up her general assertrions with any specific instances; but calling her a troll is uncalled-for. She is, at the very least, more honest and less obnoxious than Larry. Not that that’s saying a lot…

Snort. Perhaps that tiny little bee brain of yours can’t grasp the fact that PvM didn’t post his article so as to stimulate a debate about biblical literacy, or to provide Carol a forum for her to hawk a book for which she is the paid publicist and probably the wife of the author (the book is dedicated to “Carol”, whom Carol says is Landa’s wife; considering how she fawns over him, it’s a reasonable to infer that they are likely to be the same person).

Comment #69211

Posted by anti-troll patrol on January 9, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

It is best to let creationists post and let lurkers see how they are rebutted.

Not when you are drawn into moronic debates about religion that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

Comment #69213

Posted by JONBOY on January 9, 2006 5:09 PM (e)

Why does everyone fail to see Carol’s and David’s dilemma? like so many others, it starts with their own desires.They want a God or a savior, they crave a better world, a heaven, and of course a book(the bible) with all the right answers,then they project those desires into their own versions of reality. Any ideas that may refute or challenge their religious concepts,must be swept aside or totally dismissed, this reinforces their faith system.When David looks to explain certain scientific problems within the bible, he proceeds, not in a neutral manner,to find the truth, but in a frame of mind that the bible must be correct, and any other explanation simply is not an alternative.
I would lay the burden of truth squarely at their feet,prove the bible is valid, truthful,inerrant,and contains no errors.If you concede that there is one, single error,you open up Pandoras Box to the total validity of all the book.The bible clearly states that”ALL scriptures are inspired by God”not just the ones David,Carol,or any other, so called bible scholars have decided upon, ALL means All. John Wesley said “If there is only one falsehood in the bible,it could not be inspired by God” I would agree.
If I were to rhetorically? ask both David and Carol if, they were presented with overwhelming evidence that would prove conclusively that their beliefs were false, would they accept it?I feel they would answer, that no such evidence could ever exist.

Comment #69216

Posted by Tice with a J on January 9, 2006 5:15 PM (e)

Michael Rathbun, FCD wrote:

Astrology actually would not be properly inserted into an astronomy course as a putative “competing theory”, since it actually says almost nothing about the nature and history of the stars and planets themselves. It would actually need to be inserted into biology, sociology and psychology courses, since its main thrust is “the effect of heavenly bodies on Earthly bodies”, more or less.

Right, and well said. The competing theories for modern astronomy are Ptolemaic astronomy and Tychonian astronomy. Ptolemaic astronomy can be said to have been disproved since we’ve been up in space and haven’t run into any crystal spheres. Tychonian astronomy is incompatible with the general theory of relativity, since it claims that Earth is a special reference frame, “better” than all others, which is wrong. That’s something all the modern geocentrists miss.

Comment #69222

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 5:24 PM (e)

impervious,

I do not think atheists are plotting to destroy Christianity. What gave you that idea? And if they were, it would be just about the last thing I would worry about.

What I have been saying is that they care–not all–but especially those with an interest in science–that the bible be deemed irreconcilable with science. It is important, I suspect, for their feelings of self-consistency.

JONBOY,

I agree with much of your comment. I earlier wrote: “Well, in a nutshell because the bible makes very lofty self-referential claims, if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies —and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real.”

Comment #69225

Posted by Jon Fleming on January 9, 2006 5:27 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Comment #69087 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 12:39 PM
1.Behe is probably the only biologist the ID movement have. He did not say ID was like astrology. Rather he said that the way scientific standards would have to be changed in order to include ID they would also then allow astrology in.

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID

Wishin’ don’t make it so, Larry. Let’s see some names … and don’t forget that signing the famous DI Statement don’t mean supporting ID.

Comment #69227

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 5:29 PM (e)

Dr. Heddle,
Surely it should be God that is inerrant rather than the writings of a few ancient people.
How do you know that they didn’t just make it up?

Comment #69233

Posted by Ogee on January 9, 2006 5:33 PM (e)

Is this nonsense not simply proof that the God of the Gaps is in retreat even on the pages of the Bible? The Bible is “literally” true… except where it has to be carefully and creatively interpreted by the likes of Heddle so as not to conflict with science. Apparently this requires one to abandon any sort of literal reading of the definition of the dictionary entry under ‘literal’.

Comment #69234

Posted by Scott on January 9, 2006 5:33 PM (e)

Mr. Heddle,
I think you miss two points. First, it’s not the “evolutionists”, nor even the proponents on this blog who claim that the Bible must be read absolutely “literally”. It is a small subset of “fundamentalists” who claim that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. As these fundamentalists describe it, “inerrant” means that there is no waffling. These fundamentalists (not the assembled bloggers) say that the Bible does *not* speak in metaphor (except where a given character such as Jesus says he/she is telling a story). The fundamentalists say there is *no* mistranslation. I have heard it described that the Hand of God guided each hand of each translator, so there can be no error in translation. If, as you say, many parts of the Bible are not to be taken verbatim, but can be seen as metaphor where needed, then I don’t think anyone here has a problem.

(BTW, your arguments about bats-as-birds and the dimensions of a particular metal circle seem quite reasonable, especially the problems of translation. But then with those qualifiers, we’re no longer talking about a “literal”, “inerrant” reading of a particular English version of the Bible. In that case, we’re talking about what the Bronze and Iron Age folks thought about their world at that time, which may be quite different than what we know today. It may have been “true” as far as they knew, even though it may have been wrong.)

The second point you appear to miss is what these assembled bloggers actually get upset about. If the “fundamentalists” only claimed that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, no one here would get upset. What they DO get upset about is when these same “fundamentalists” start claiming that large parts of science are in error, and society (and in particular the government) much teach our children that proven science is wrong, and that the ONLY truth can be found in the Bible. *That’s* what people get upset about.

If you aren’t making either of those two claims (inerrancy or science-is-wrong), then I don’t think anyone here has any issue.

Scott
—–
P.S. Except for those hard core cases who just like to argue and throw insults around. ;-)

Comment #69236

Posted by limpidense on January 9, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

I 100% agree with anti-troll (Auntie?), and add it is not best when I have to skim over a deluge of drivel by David H., Carol C., or that new, near Platonic Ideal of dumbnessity, Larry. F. (Although I still believe L.F. might be a particularly extended joker, however not funny his brand of humor would be.)
I really am getting to the point of just leaving this site: these are more than people I don’t simply disagree with: they are harpies who befoul every possible discussion.

(Oh, and a special note to C.C. and D.H.: Even skimming past your endlessly repetitive posts, I still find I cannot avoid ending up with the stench of your self-absorption on the heels of my consciousness, due to so many people being fascinated with challenging (or baiting, perhaps) you. I’ll address you both directly, I hope for the very last time in this life: most of us, atheist or not, here don’t give a flying f— about the Bible in relation to science. Much, MUCH wiser, smarter, more eloquent, more tactfully forceful people than you have exhausted that line of inquiry entirely, perhaps over a hundred years ago. You and your sort (GoP or Blast) are not merely wrong – often ignorantly, often dishonestly, willfully wrong – in EVERY assertion you make but boring: inventive, passe, not novel, not even cute. If I want to see CREATIVE insanity, I need but google “kooks” to find honest nutcases, from whom I can learn far much more about being human than you can now ever hope to be, stunted and “spiritually” blind as you are.)

Comment #69237

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

It is not an admission that the bible contains error, it is an admission those who (without biblical support—it wasn’t actually worse than a bad interpretation) demanded that the earth be at the center of the cosmos.

you left the sentence unfinished Heddle - what happened - too much froth come out of your mouth?

Steve Elliot wrote:

It had better be “Real Ale” though. Or I will get all fundy and preachy

no problems there mate - our local brew is Harveys - CAMRA Champion best beer of Britain 2005! (I have theory that pisswater the colonials drink addles their brains - but I won’t share it because I’m sure there’s a comrade or two who also enjoys the stuff.

Posted by RupertG on January 9, 2006 04:47 PM (e) (s)

One of the pleasures (there have to be some) of being addicted to this debate even though I’m far away in the UK is that it’s educational. In particular, the business of ID being the same order of thinking as astrology has been enlightening — and here I must thank my partner, who’s an expert in early modern Scottish history and takes quite an interest in current creationist/ID happenings.

Lets all thank the Scots for their leading role in the ‘enlightenment’ - the role of rational thinking in both the legal and scientific professions is no accident - It’s a great place where learning and critical thinking is highly respected. I enjoyed my time at Edinburgh University (although unfortunately Darwin didn’t enjoy his.)

I’ve also noticed that the Scots have the highest percentage of ‘non-believers’ of any nation in the UK according to the 2001 census. They also have a reputation for being solid, sensible folk.

Which is more than you can say for the English and Welsh - where according to the same census the fourth most popular religion is ‘Jedi’ (beat that FSM!): Religion in the UK

Larry will be telling us it because we teach it in school next….

Comment #69238

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 9, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

Heddle wrote:

“…if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies —and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real.”

Heddle can’t make an argument of any length without introducing logical fallacies. Here we have for your amusement a lovely false dichotomy. The bible, if not inerrant truth, must be “a pack of lies,” as if there were no other alternatives. I guess this means that anything–even intentional fiction–that gets disproven is a pack of lies.

Comment #69239

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 5:35 PM (e)

Looks like the IDiots over at TelicThoughts have taken a page from the Dembski playbook. They are now banning people outright for posting polite but dissenting opinions, claiming these posters are really “trolls”.

Dave Scot is banning at least one person a day at Demsbiki’s smile a while a day camp IDC blog. Not for disagreeing either, he is banning IDC supporters who do not share Dave’s personal values and opinions. Dave has been given a baseball bat by Dembski and by time traveling space alien (aka God) he’s going to use it!

If you look at Dembksi’s, ARN’s, and a few other IDC blogs you can see an authoritarian type of get out of line and you will be punished party line seems to be a part of IDC culture. This makes perfect sense, especailly when you realize that it only take a few questions to bring the whole house of cards down.

Silencing critics as well as intimidating their own followers/supporters seems to be their strong suit.

It’s funny when you read at Dembski’s blog some naive IDC supporter who is beginning to see through the IDC charade and will say something like “I thought this was supposed to be about science?

Comment #69240

Posted by Ogee on January 9, 2006 5:36 PM (e)

Heddle wrote:

I do not think atheists are plotting to destroy Christianity. What gave you that idea? And if they were, it would be just about the last thing I would worry about.

Huh? Obviously, you care very much about what atheists think of Christianity.

Comment #69243

Posted by yorktank on January 9, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

Re: 69211

In fairness, this post was about Dembski, so it was doomed to become a “moronic debate” from the start.

Comment #69245

Posted by Jason on January 9, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

JONBOY wrote:

They want a God or a savior, they crave a better world, a heaven, and of course a book(the bible) with all the right answers,then they project those desires into their own versions of reality. Any ideas that may refute or challenge their religious concepts,must be swept aside or totally dismissed, this reinforces their faith system.

How’s this then?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/623#more-623

Comment #69246

Posted by improvius on January 9, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Dr. Heddle wrote:

What I have been saying is that they care—not all—but especially those with an interest in science—that the bible be deemed irreconcilable with science. It is important, I suspect, for their feelings of self-consistency.

Fine. How many atheistic (or simply non-Christian) scientific organizations do you know of that, as part of their charter, analyze or debate the accuracy of the bible as it relates to science?

Now compare that number to the number of Christian organizations that do the same.

Comment #69255

Posted by AC on January 9, 2006 5:52 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

Why is provoking an issue? If a Rastafanarian “provokes” me by claiming his book is scientifically inerrant—I won’t respond because I simply don’t care. Atheists, on the other hand, readily respond to such claims about the bible. Sorry, the evidence is clear that you really do care that the bible simply must be incompatible with science.

Steve S put it a bit more sarcastically than me, but you still fail to see (or feign so) the chicken/egg issue here. The drug predates the addiction. The religion predates the heresy. Not only did no one claim the bible is crap before it was written and compiled (which is trivial), but they also didn’t do so before someone started saying “this is the word of God!” and beating people over the heads with it (to varying degrees of literality).

That explains the “why”. For the “why so fervently”, I again refer you to history. Though religious people have made innumerable contributions to science, religion has always tended to stifle scientific enquiry. We are tired, David. We are tired of religion’s blinkered “explanations” and “just trust us” thought-killers. We are tired of having to nod reverently at religion despite its utter inability (and self-righteous refusal) to provide any evidence for its claims beyond “‘cause we say so”. It is patronizing, insulting, and worst of all, insufficient.

Believers claim the bible is divinely revealed. I find that claim outlandish, and ask for proof. They not only give none - they proudly state that God does not need to prove Himself to foolish, questioning mortals. I say “then to hell with God” and, in a more perfect world, go about my business with no further religious interruptions.

But some people can’t separate rejection of their god from rejection of themselves. Still others aren’t satisfied with their tax-favored, constitutionally-protected churches and seek to bring all men under their (god’s) rule. From the latter to the former - the lion to the lamb - nonbelievers are constantly affected by religion in the form of history and believers. We’ll stop when you do - no sooner.

As a side note, I will say that I read your personal blog posts about bats being birds and pi equalling three, and they’re both quite right. However, I would also note that anyone using those arguments against the bible is trying to climb down the chimney of a house with no roof.

Comment #69257

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 05:34 PM (e) (s)

It is not an admission that the bible contains error, it is an admission those who (without biblical support—it wasn’t actually worse than a bad interpretation) demanded that the earth be at the center of the cosmos.

you left the sentence unfinished Heddle - what happened - too much froth come out of your mouth?

Steve Elliot wrote:

It had better be “Real Ale” though. Or I will get all fundy and preachy

no problems there mate - our local brew is Harveys - CAMRA Champion best beer of Britain 2005! (I have theory that pisswater the colonials drink addles their brains - but I won’t share it because I’m sure there’s a comrade or two who also enjoys the stuff.

Where do you live?

I am a fan of “Bombardier”, “London Pride” and “Abbot’s Ale” and of course “Old speckled hen”.

If you live near London and fancy a wet, let me know.
There is a cracking pub just off Trafalgar square, lots of real ale, reasonably priced.

Comment #69263

Posted by Alan Fox on January 9, 2006 6:00 PM (e)

I have theory that pisswater the colonials drink addles their brains

Have to disagree here, Dean. Some Canadian beer is very palatable, and definitely more potent than piss. E.g. Creemore wheat beer from Ontario is excellent.

If you look at Dembksi’s, ARN’s, and a few other IDC blogs you can see an authoritarian type of get out of line and you will be punished party line seems to be a part of IDC culture. This makes perfect sense, especailly when you realize that it only take a few questions to bring the whole house of cards down.

As one who has just got banned at ISCID for attemping to ask awkward questions, I agree. Demonstrating the inability of those maintaining ID sites to permit or sustain reasoned debate,I believe, continues to show the emperor has no clothes.

Comment #69265

Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

Wislu,

It may a false dichotomy—but it is not as obvious as you put it, since your quote omits where I said the bible makes lofty claims about itself. If the bible never claimed, for example, inspiration, then perhaps it could be a “little bit” wrong. But once it makes such a claim, the stakes are immediately raised.

Ogee,

Are you really that dense? Once again, if Jesus says, in the bible, “I am the vine” must we interpret that literally? That Jesus sprouts grapes? If the answer is yes—then I have nothing further to say to you. If the answer is no, then you admit that the bible need not be taken strictly literally to be true.

Stephen Elliott,

As I said, the reason why I want the bible to be inerrant is simple, but the reason why I actually believe it is inerrant is complicated.

Scott,

It is a small subset of “fundamentalists” who claim that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. As these fundamentalists describe it, “inerrant” means that there is no waffling. These fundamentalists (not the assembled bloggers) say that the Bible does *not* speak in metaphor (except where a given character such as Jesus says he/she is telling a story).

That is not strictly true. Give me your most ardent fundamentalist, and I can find passages that he will say should not be taken literally, and not just trivial metaphors. For example, Tim LeHaye, a poster child for biblical literalism, would deny that Matt 16:28 or Matt. 24:34 should be taken literally.

I disagree that it is only because fundamentalists say large parts of science are in error that PT types get angry. That certainly might make them agree. It makes me angry! But I say nothing of the sort. I don’t claim vast scientific error–and yet many still get angry with me. I am saying that science is more or less correct, and that’s cool, and not only is that cool, it is consistent with the Bible. It is that last assertion—which has nothing to do with science being incorrect, that gets people upset with me. In fact, PT’s own mathematician, has gone out of his way to write a refutation of my claim that the bible doesn’t really teach pi = 3.

Comment #69267

Posted by gwangung on January 9, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID.

You want to be taken seriously and not be insulted, yet you make inane comments like these?

Please. Do a LITTLE research. It really, really, really helps your arguments when you bring even one teeny tiny fact to the table.

Comment #69270

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 6:10 PM (e)

DaveScot also had to warn everybody to cool it with the religious talk:

January 8, 2006
Reminder To Stay On Message

This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course.

The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion.

Comment #69274

Posted by ben on January 9, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID.

Just like, according to Larry, there must be evidence in the KvD transcript that shows the defense tried to keep that pesky email as priviliged attorney-client communnication and was unfairly/illegally/immorally denied by the judge. There must be, otherwise his lazy, know-nothing arguments would be useless.

Comment #69275

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

Know-Nothing Larry said:

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID.

If you can find hundreds of biologists who support ID, the Discovery Institute would sure like to hear from you. Contact Info:

Discovery Institute Contact Information

Discovery Institute main offices are located in the Melbourne Tower in downtown Seattle. The Melbourne Tower is at the corner of 3rd Ave and Pike St.

Seattle Headquarters:
Discovery Institute
1511 Third Ave Suite 808
Seattle, WA 98101

Phone Numbers:
Voice: (206) 292-0401
Fax: (206) 682-5320
Washington DC Office:
Discovery Institute
1015 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Phone Numbers:
Voice: (202) 558-7085
Fax: (202) 558-6763

Discovery Staff Extensions:

Name Ext. Title / Position Contact Info
Bruce Agnew 113 Policy Director, Cascadia Project
Steven J Buri 125 Executive Director
Jessica Cantelon 158 Writer and Research Associate
Bruce Chapman 101 President
Robert L Crowther 107 Director of Media and Public Relations, Center for Science and Culture rob@discovery.org
Logan Gage Office Manager, Washington DC Office (202) 558-7084
Charles D Ganske 157 Writer, Technology and Democracy Project
Eric Garcia 104 Director of Finance and Operations
Teresa Gonzales 106 Program Manager, Cascadia Project
Hance Haney Director of Technology & Democracy Project, Washington DC Office
Holly Hoss 120 Administrative Assistant, Cascadia Project
Casey Luskin 119 Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture cluskin@discovery.org
Janet Markwardt 111 Director of Events and Membership
Eleanor McCallie 126 Director of Development, Center for Science and Culture
Todd Norquist 147 Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Operator 100 206-292-0401
Keith Pennock 103 Program Administrator, Center for Science and Culture
Mark Ryland Director, Washington DC Office (202) 558-7086
Matthew Scholz 114 Director of Information Services
Bret Swanson Senior Fellow, Technology and Democracy Project
Thomas Till 145 Managing Director, Cascadia Project
John G West 110 Senior Fellow

General inquiries: info@discovery.org

Comment #69279

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

Comment #69154 posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 03:14 PM
Astrology actually would not be properly inserted into an astronomy course as a putative “competing theory”, since it actually says almost nothing about the nature and history of the stars and planets themselves. It would actually need to be inserted into biology, sociology and psychology courses, since its main thrust is “the effect of heavenly bodies on Earthly bodies”, more or less.

Astrological observation was a precursor of astronomical observation. One of my dictionary’s definitions of astrology is “primitive astronomy.” So astrology can be studied in astronomy class as a historical subject.

Comment #69281

Posted by Dave Thomas on January 9, 2006 6:30 PM (e)

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a “scientist”?

Courtesy of Kentucky letter writer Bill Holt, here’s a very good answer to that question:

Dembski is a scientist like Elmer Fudd is a hunter.

Cheers, Dave

Comment #69285

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott wrote:

I am a fan of “Bombardier”, “London Pride” and “Abbot’s Ale” and of course “Old speckled hen”.

Good show, old chap! I confess I’m more of a fan of seasonal ales, although that’s doubtless because of one absolutely glorious one that I tried whilst pissed many years back and now can’t find anywhere, nor remember the name of…

Still, the continued hunt for that liquid nectar of yesteryear is certainly entertaining :P

What’s the Trafalgar Square pub called? I’m not in London very often, but that sounds worth making a special trip for at some point.

Comment #69287

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

Comment #69239 posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 05:35 PM

****Looks like the IDiots over at TelicThoughts have taken a page from the Dembski playbook. They are now banning people outright for posting polite but dissenting opinions, claiming these posters are really “trolls”.****

Dave Scot is banning at least one person a day at Demsbiki’s smile a while a day camp IDC blog. Not for disagreeing either, he is banning IDC supporters who do not share Dave’s personal values and opinions.

Is this the same Dave Scott (Scott, not Scot?) who was banned from Panda’s Thumb? I don’t see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

I have had plenty of trouble in posting “polite but dissenting opinions” on this website.

Comment #69289

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 6:47 PM (e)

Where do you live?

I am a fan of “Bombardier”, “London Pride” and “Abbot’s Ale” and of course “Old speckled hen”.

If you live near London and fancy a wet, let me know.
There is a cracking pub just off Trafalgar square, lots of real ale, reasonably priced.

I’ll happily drink any of those - although ‘Old Speckled Hen isn’t what I’d call a ‘session beer’

Leave me a message on the blog of the deceased office cat from my last place of employment:

http://ruwdie.blogspot.com/

Sorry to be cloak and dagger but we don’t want the trolls to invade our session.

sorry Alan - Canadian beer is probably very nice - I’m a fan of wheatbeers myself - and the Panda’s Thumb serves an international clientele after all…
and we can’t talk - Pisswater is the most popular drink in the UK too.

Comment #69290

Posted by Tice with a J on January 9, 2006 6:49 PM (e)

Jason wrote:

How’s this then?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/623#more-623

That’s actually pretty funny. On a side note, are we really one nation under God anymore? One nation under mammon would be more appropriate.

By the way, why all this trolling and troll-feeding about the whole religion/science bit? The Bible does not teach us cosmology or biology or astronomy. It teaches us how we should live, what happens to us when we die, and how those things fit together. Science teaches us how to find out more about things we can repeatedly observe. The point of the creation story was to 1) impress upon us that God is boss around these parts and 2) show to us the importance of taking one day off out of seven for rest and relaxation.

Trying to reconcile your religious beliefs with your scientific standards ought to be like like trying to reconcile your political affiliation with your ice cream preference - in other words, a complete non-issue.

Comment #69291

Posted by gwangung on January 9, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

I have had plenty of trouble in posting “polite but dissenting opinions” on this website.

Do research. Could help.

Comment #69294

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Hundred of biologists must support ID, huh?

Instead of speculating on random biologists, let us consider just a dozen or so legitimate trained, educated biologists who are probably in the very best possible position to judge intelligent design creationism. Behe’s very own collegues and coworkers.

Odd that Michael “It could be a time traveler or a space alien” Behe is unable to persuade a single biologists at Lehigh (where he teaches) that ID is scientific. From the Lehigh biology department’s own web page:

Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

It doesn’t get more black and white (and damning) than that now does it?

Now, these guys work with Behe, they sip coffee or tea with him daily, they sit in staff meetings, they probably get donuts in the morning from the same Krispy Kream box, no doubt they talk shop.

And yet the department message clearly states While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

You’d think that if Behe’s ideas had any scientific merit whatsoever, at least some members of the biology department where he teaches would be able to see it, no?

If you look at the biology department faculty details some of them sure seem to sport fancy scientific credentials and education.

How odd is it that here you have a dozen or so biologists that are closer to Behe than any other scientist and yet they reject his ideas and IDC on a wholesale level.

If Behe’s theories on the space alien/time traveler are so scientific, why do his collegues in his own biology department reject them? They are in the best position to judge his work, and they are in the best position to debate his ideas. No doubt Behe has had many IDC dicussions with them.

Yet they put a disclaimer on the front page of the biology department web site distancing themselves from him and his nutty, unscientific ideas.

Now, that doesn’t prove his ideas are stupid, he does a good job of doing that all by himself, but it does make you wonder when people start yapping about these so called “scientists” or “biologists” who support IDC. Behe cannot get anyone at the biology department of his own univeristy to support his insane theories.

While I am sure the Discovery Institute can find “scientists” who support IDC, it is noted that so far they have failed to convince any of Behe’s collegues of it. If IDC has any merit at all you’d think Behe’s own collegues would be a soft target for them.

Comment #69295

Posted by anti-troll patrol on January 9, 2006 6:55 PM (e)

In fairness, this post was about Dembski, so it was doomed to become a “moronic debate” from the start.

That’s neither fair nor true – there have been numerous discussions at PT of Dembski that have not turned into moronic debates. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the point that this debate does nothing to impress lurkers looking for information about ID and evolution.

Comment #69299

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 6:56 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I don’t see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

That’s because you have a unique IP number Larry, that stays the same no matter what you change your name too.

Which is another reason why your plan to come back under different ‘screen names’ is flawed:
Larry plans to turn into a zombie

Sounds like the Trafalgar Square thing could be a runner if corkscrew would like to join in…- how about trying for ‘Darwin Day’:

http://www.darwinday.org/

Comment #69300

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

larry said

I have had plenty of trouble in posting “polite but dissenting opinions” on this website.

Which web site, larry? You mean pandas thumb or uncommondescent?

Comment #69301

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

Anti-troll Patrol - I tried to encourage others to ignore the trolls much earlier in this thread - however even I gave up when Carol and Heddle joined in..

Dean Morrison wrote:

.. don’t get Larry started on legal definitions Julie … he considers himself to be a ‘legal eagle’ and he’ll have that nice lady at the library run off her feet…. probably too late now - expect this thread to be innundated with the ramblings of this self-proclaimed ‘legal genius’.

perhaps it’s better to have them tied up on one thread than making a mess all over the place - and there is a certain sick facination in teasing them….

Comment #69305

Posted by KiwiInOz on January 9, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

This thread has become far more interesting now that we are talking about beer (FSM heaven)! All you warm beer and weasels water skullers should try Monteaths (Original, Celtic Red, Dark etc) from New Zealand. Ok they are now really making it in Auckland, and not the West Coast anymore, but it is still shades above a lot of foreign muck.

Comment #69306

Posted by Tice with a J on January 9, 2006 7:10 PM (e)

Mr Christopher - you failed to point that Jill Schneider, another biology professor at Lehigh University, has posted some excellent thoughts about Intelligent Design Theory and evolution. It is well thought-out, informative, persuasive and occasionally humorous. I recommend it as reading material for all PT regulars and lurkers.

Comment #69312

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

Tice with a J, this is new to me! Thank you kindly. This one gets bookmarked :-)

Chris

Comment #69313

Posted by yorktank on January 9, 2006 7:20 PM (e)

anti-troll patrol wrote:

That’s neither fair nor true — there have been numerous discussions at PT of Dembski that have not turned into moronic debates. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the point that this debate does nothing to impress lurkers looking for information about ID and evolution.

Relax. It was a joke. Surely the bounty of posts on this site made by, you know, actual contributors who debunk Dembski quite nicely will suffice for the casual lurker. At any rate, this thread was derailed long ago. Also, who died and made you the Thread Police?

Comment #69315

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 7:25 PM (e)

I don’t see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

Larry doesn’t know shit about shit, apparently.

Comment #69318

Posted by Russell on January 9, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

By the way, why all this trolling and troll-feeding about the whole religion/science bit?

It’s a puzzle, all right.

I invited David and Carol and everyone else to take this Bible vs. Science stuff to After the Bar Closes, where I started a thread specifically for it. Alas, they weren’t interested.

As to why nonbelievers care about how believers interpret their holy books unless they’re somehow insecure in their nonbelief, I have two words for you: Al Qaeda

Comment #69324

Posted by anti-troll patrol on January 9, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

Relax. It was a joke.

A favorite device of posers everywhere. Predictably, you go on to try to seriously argue your point.

Surely the bounty of posts on this site made by, you know, actual contributors who debunk Dembski quite nicely will suffice for the casual lurker. At any rate, this thread was derailed long ago.

Indeed, at the 9th post when Carol Clouser threw her bomb.

Also, who died and made you the Thread Police?

When did you stop beating your wife, poser?

Comment #69325

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 7:41 PM (e)

David,

I am astounded at that ridiculous argument countering your fine analysis of Solomon’s sea and the pi = 3 affair. That the Bible is replete with rounding and approximations is an old story. The Talmud (tractate Eruvin) analyzes the pertinent verses and concludes as you did - and that was almost two thousand years ago!

Stephen Elliott,

“Do you not consider it odd that God would only speak to a very small group of people and a long time ago? Surely the creator of the entire universe would present evidence to all people. I find it objectionable to state that only a few individuals can know the mind of God and the rest of us should just slavishly obey.”

Since you indicated that you believe in God, surely your conception of Him is sophisticated enough for you to realize that neither you or I, nor any of the created, can read nor understand His “mind”, the creator. His calculations are cosmic in scope, ours are provincial, selfish and mundane.

The Bible (old testament, of course) clearly states that it is addressed to a small group of people, referred to as the children of Israel, who were designated by Him as the chosen people and assigned special responsiblities. We can speculate endlessly as to why He did so, and I can think of quite a few good reasons, but did so He did.

Clearly God has chosen to be elusive. Which is why intelligent men and women are still endlessly debating his mere existence. We can speculate endlessly about this too, and I can think of quite a few solid reasons, but did so He did.

You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don’t believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

Comment #69329

Posted by ben on January 9, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

I don’t see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

Larry doesn’t know shit about shit, apparently.

Not so fast. According to Larry (on another thread),

If I am banned, I will just come back under a pseudonym. I am not only a good troll, but I am also a darn good hacker.

And as Larry will tell you, anything Larry says is convincing and persuasive, so it must be right. So don’t bother banning him or he’ll just bust loose with his 1337 h4xx0r ski77z, jO0 nO0bz. Then you’ll be sorry.

Comment #69334

Posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

Dean Morrison wrote:

Sounds like the Trafalgar Square thing could be a runner if corkscrew would like to join in…- how about trying for ‘Darwin Day’

Works for me! I’ll be back at uni then but should be easily able to shuttle down. I’d appreciate it if someone would prod me a few days before the event - my email address is ajl59 at cam dot ac dot uk.

Hmm, this is not going to make Monday lectures any easier. Oh well, all in a good cause :P

Comment #69335

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 7:57 PM (e)

LOL. yes, i’m sure Larry will show us all.

Comment #69347

Posted by blipey on January 9, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 06:44 PM

Larry, that is your name above, is it not? Posting today? Once again you fail to grasp the basics of an argument. The point is not that some (noticably not yourself) have been banned from PT (for valid reasons in all cases, I’m assuming), but that your favorite pet sites pan for no valid reason at all. I despair in asking you to see the obvious, but if I don’t try on occasion, my head builds up this horrific pressure and starts to bleed.

Comment #69349

Posted by yorktank on January 9, 2006 8:14 PM (e)

Anti-troll patrol, I just don’t know what to make of you at this point. How am I a poser? Seriously, unmask me for everyone here at PT. I’d like to know what you think my agenda is. It seems you think I’m a Dembski acolyte, which couldn’t be further from the truth. You see, I was playing on your use of the phrase “moronic debate”, in essence saying that all thoughts Dembski provokes are moronic. Looking back at it, it wasn’t a very good joke.

I hope you at least see the irony in the fact that you, too, are now contributing to the derailing of this topic. I certainly see the irony that the anti-troll patrol is now behaving like a troll. (When did I stop beating my wife?) That just doesn’t make any sense…poser.

And to think, all you had to do was post an intriguing thought about the initial post and you may have actually achieved your goal…oh, nevermind. You’re clearly only interested in flaming. Sorry I baited you. I should’ve just left my flat joke on the ground.

Comment #69354

Posted by gregonomic on January 9, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

The Bible (old testament, of course) clearly states that it is addressed to a small group of people, referred to as the children of Israel, who were designated by Him as the chosen people and assigned special responsibilities. We can speculate endlessly as to why He did so, and I can think of quite a few good reasons, but did so He did.

I’m sure I’m not the only one here who’d be interested in hearing your “few good reasons” for why your alleged [G|g]od might have allegedly addressed the allegedly chosen people he allegedly did.

Clearly God has chosen to be elusive. Which is why intelligent men and women are still endlessly debating his mere existence. We can speculate endlessly about this too, and I can think of quite a few solid reasons, but did so He did.

Again … reasons?

You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don’t believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

Sounds like you’ve got your head jammed almost as far up your own behind as did the allegedly chosen people who wrote down your alleged [G|g]od’s word, back in the day.

I guess you won’t be too disappointed if those of us who aren’t members of the select club of “chosen people”, and who find your [G|g]od to be elusive-to-the-point-of-being-completely-irrelevant, chose not to believe in this mythical entity, and get back to our work?

If hanging out with people like you for all of eternity is supposed to be the bait that lures me into becoming a believer, then … well … NO THANKS!

Sorry folks, just got to the end of this rather long thread, and had to vent.

Comment #69365

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 8:52 PM (e)

Comment #69299 posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 06:56 PM

Larry wrote:
*****I don’t see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).*****

That’s because you have a unique IP number Larry, that stays the same no matter what you change your name too.

The Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia article on IP addresses says —
“The unique nature of IP addresses makes it possible in many situations to track which computer — and by extension, which person — has sent a message or engaged in some other activity on the Internet. This information has been used by law enforcement authorities to identify criminal suspects; however dynamically-assigned IP addresses can make this difficult.” See –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address

The ACLU has been so busy attacking ID that it has not had time to attack the above outrageous invasion of privacy.

Anyway, computers cannot be linked to a specific individual, because often different people use the same computer. Also, some people have access to different computers, so switching to another computer is one way of defeating a ban. Also, dynamically-assigned IP addressing is another way of defeating a ban. I would think that this dynamic IP assignment would be a big selling point for an Internet Service Provider. Another good reason to use dynamic IP addressing is to prevent the blacklisting of IP numbers by several blogs. Also, I would think that add-on IP scrambling devices for computers would be hot-selling items.

Thanks for bringing this outrage to my attention. I figured that only AOL could block my emails because all of my email addresses are linked to the same AOL account. I have already used email address changes to defeat spam filters.

I think that there should be a law requiring all ISP’s to use dynamic IP address assignment (I keep thinking up all these wonderful ideas for new laws).

You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn’t believe me.

=====================================
“I’m from Missouri. You’ll have to show me.” — Willard Duncan Vandiver

Comment #69366

Posted by Ogee on January 9, 2006 8:53 PM (e)

Heddle wrote:

Once again, if Jesus says, in the bible, “I am the vine” must we interpret that literally? That Jesus sprouts grapes? If the answer is yes—then I have nothing further to say to you. If the answer is no, then you admit that the bible need not be taken strictly literally to be true.

Another Heddle-brand false dichotomy? If the Bible tells us Jesus said “I am the vine”, the literal interpretation is that Jesus said “I am the vine”. No problem with science there.

But let’s settle down to a specific example to avoid your weaseling: how much of, say, Genesis 7 do you claim to be (a)literally true and (b)consistent with science?

Comment #69367

Posted by jon nickles on January 9, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

It is entirely unreasonable from the point of view that the Bible is a divinely inspired document. After all, who or what would know science better than the party responsible for breathing fire into it?

This is an incredibly dumb argument. If the bible was divinely inspired, there would be no argument about which version of the bible anyone was reading. They would all be the same, regardless of translation. How could an all powerfull god allow his message to be changed by mere mortals!?

David Heddle wrote:

But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science.

There is a big difference between not wanting the bible to be consistent with science, and not believing that they are consistent. I grew up going to church every Sunday, but over time I realized that the bible didn’t make sense. It’s not because I didn’t want science to be consistent with the bible, that’s just the way it is.

Comment #69372

Posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I think that there should be a law requiring all ISP’s to use dynamic IP address assignment (I keep thinking up all these wonderful ideas for new laws).

You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn’t believe me.

Speaking as one whose day job involves tracking down persons committing network abuse, and who teaches seminars to law enforcement personnel regarding Internet forensics, I think that “breathtaking inanity” is not a sufficiently expressive evaluation of your statements.

I’m assuming that the word “hacker”, as you use it, means “somebody who spends a great deal of time flailing at things using moderately sharp implements, but fails to make any significant dents”.

Comment #69374

Posted by Ogee on January 9, 2006 9:12 PM (e)

Heddle wrote:

Once again, if Jesus says, in the bible, “I am the vine” must we interpret that literally? That Jesus sprouts grapes? If the answer is yes—then I have nothing further to say to you. If the answer is no, then you admit that the bible need not be taken strictly literally to be true.

Another Heddle-brand false dilemma? I’m shocked. If the Bible tells us Jesus said “I am the vine”, the literal interpretation is that Jesus said “I am the vine”. No problem with science there. People use silly metaphors all the time. The statements made elsewhere (e.g. Genesis) directly in the narrative voice are not so easily explained without shooting fatal holes in literal inerrancy.

But let’s settle down to a specific example to avoid your weaseling: how much of, say, Genesis 7 do you claim to be (a)literally true and (b)consistent with science?

Comment #69375

Posted by CJ O'Brien on January 9, 2006 9:12 PM (e)

Heddle and Clouser:
(speaking here about the Pentateuch, for focus.)

OK, so the bible is “divinely inspired.” (granted for the sake of argument)

And the original “audience”/inspirees knew approximately jack squat of what we now know about science. (granted by you I hope)

It is believed to have its roots in oral traditions.

Was written down in different places and times by different people with different ideas about the nature of the godhead and, probably, the nature of “nature.” But (and here’s the kicker) presumably was consistent with those peoples’ beliefs about nature.

And was then translated and probably oocasionally mis-translated/-transcripted numerous times (or has each instance of “the bible” been also divinely directed to “bring it into line” with evolving human understanding?)

Barring agreement with the last parenthetical, I cannot for the life of me figure out how the bible could possibly be consistent with modern science.

I mean, 20 year old cutting edge science isn’t even consistent with what we’re now pleased to call “science.” (And that won’t be consistent with “science” 20 years hence, and that…)

I’m not trying to be rude (and I haven’t been feeding the trolls all y’all, so indulge me this tidbit.) I just don’t get it.

Comment #69376

Posted by Mr_Christopher on January 9, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

larry wrote

“I think that there should be a law requiring all ISP’s to use dynamic IP address assignment (I keep thinking up all these wonderful ideas for new laws).”

Larry if you knew anything about technology and the internet you’d know why this is a moronic idea. But I know expecting you to know anything about a subject you speak on is asking too much. Feel free to prove me wrong and name 3 reasons why this is a dumb idea.

Good lord man is there any subject under the sun that you actually know something about? Cars, boats, guns, sorts, anything at all?

Obviously science, technology, law, and history are not your areas of knowledge. Surely there must be some subject for which you are not challenged?

Comment #69377

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

Memo to the nice lady at the library :

‘don’t let Larry play with scissors - he’ll only hurt himself’

Comment #69378

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 9:16 PM (e)

You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn’t believe me.

Okay, I’m calling bullshit. Larry Falafelman is a fake. He doesn’t believe what he’s saying. He’s acting simultaneously ignorant and pompous. It’s a spoof.

Comment #69382

Posted by Moses on January 9, 2006 9:29 PM (e)

You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don’t believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

Which god of the Canaanites would that be? El? (aka El Shaddai, aka El Elyon, aka El Bethel) You know, the head of the northern kingdom’s pantheon of gods or Yahweh, the southern kingdom’s monotheistic/loner god?

Oh, I hope that doesn’t puzzle you. Because I’ve found it to puzzle the vast majority of Christians, who are a tad bit unaware of the evolution of God. You know, the two different Israelite gods from before the first revision of Judaism in began 1200 BC. Or does your “special bible text” not bother in it’s dealing with the problem that the current God was at one time two separate gods, one of which was the head of a pantheon of lesser gods (and married), with two very different orthodoxies… :)

Anyway, this was about 100 lines longer (sans footnotes) but I erased the vast bulk of my post. I don’t want to get into the evolution of god. I just wanted to point out that there are some people that might, by training, happened to know some things you’re unaware of due to a certain myopic world view that the vast majority of Christians share. And when you start getting all hostile in your certainty… It rubs the wrong way…

Comment #69388

Posted by ben on January 9, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

But other information on the internets shows that there does seem to be a real person named Larry Fafarman who has accomplished real things like blowing open the “real story behind meteor showers” conspiracy and filing cases that were ignored by SCOTUS. So for his persona to be truly fraudulent either 1) Larry Fafarman’s real-world identity has been stolen by 1337 h@xx0rz who are cunningly crafting laughably boastful and ill-informed rants on PT in some bizarre plot to ruin his credibility or 2) Larry is self-parodying himself by doing the same thing. Either way, who cares.

What Larry predictably doesn’t get is that, yes, he (and most 9-year olds) could circumvent whetever banning mechanism PT or any other public blog might use to eliminate trolls like himself from their midst, and post under another name. But whatever he calls himself, his unmistakably vacuous yet narcissistic style of blather would be instantly recognizable and his new name would then be banned, only this time much faster. I think any idiot (except Larry) realizes that anyone could keep coming back to PT with new IPs, new user names, etc., and defacing the comments as much as they wanted with pointless self-congratulationary non-argumentation, but such would be pointless if a new identity ultimately had to be chosen for every post. Because clearly, the whole point of Larry’s sojourn here–self-stimulation and attention-getting–would be moot if we didn’t know him as Larry Fafafooey. His real mistake is thinking what he says he makes any difference to begin with.

Comment #69389

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 9:49 PM (e)

gregonomic,

Reading the beginning of your post I thought I might actually become animated to engage you in reasoned discussion, especially since you are probably right about not being the only one here interested in whatever reasons might be given for some of God’s actions. But then your post turned vulgar, insolent and flippant. You are apparently neither truly interested in, nor in the frame of mind to sincerely engage in, such a discussion.

jon nickels,

“How could an all powerfull god allow his message to be changed by mere mortals!?”

First, it hasn’t changed. The original Hebrew Bible is still in the hands of those for whom it was intended. And it is still revered by most of them. And those who choose not to revere it, well, they are exercising their God-given free will. Second, see my post above #69325.

Ogee,

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science. Look into it. The matter has been dealt with long ago. If you want some book recommendations, please do let me know.

Comment #69393

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 9:54 PM (e)

sorry to have to quote myself from another thread:

The trouble is - as soon as a troll with delusions of grandeur starts spouting out their: cranky legal ‘expertise’; unsavory racial opinions; and bizarre views of astronomy and the moon landings; then you’ll be rumbled…and if you don’t do those things then it’s rather going to defeat the purpose of coming here for you isn’t it?

So let’s all play - ‘Spot the Larry!’

Comment #69399

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 9, 2006 10:03 PM (e)

Can I safely assume that all of the nutters who have suddenly shown up all at once are related to each other in some way?

Comment #69400

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 9, 2006 10:05 PM (e)

Hey Carol, why, again, are youtr religious opinions any better than anyone else’s?

And why, again, do you think science should pay the slightest attention to your religious opinions?

And why, again, is Heddle wrong about the New Testament and you are right about it (other than your say-so)?

Comment #69404

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 10:13 PM (e)

ben, you’re quite right. Let me be clear, I don’t mean that Larry Falafalman doesn’t exist, I think he just enjoys saying belligerent things and doesn’t care how true those things are.

Comment #69405

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

Lenny, that’s a good point. Carol’s saying Oh Mister Dave, the bible is so accurate, you’re right; and David replies oh Miss Carol, I know, these dang ol atheists are so scared but it’s true, the bible is so infallible…

and they carefully fail to mention that they’re not talking about the same book. Really doubt Dave’s using the Judah Landa translation.

Comment #69415

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 9, 2006 10:52 PM (e)

steve s:

The Judah Landa translation of the Bible is “the translation to end all translations”, just like World War I was “the war to end all wars”.

Comment #69420

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:56 PM (e)

I just got the following personal email from one of the blog managers –

Larry wrote:
****If I am banned, I will just come back under a pseudonym. I am not only
a good troll, but I am also a darn good hacker.*****

There is comparatively little that can get you banned from PT, but threats like that - and the equivalent acts - do qualify. Please don’t do it again.

======================================

Hence, I will not discuss this subject any further. OK ? Thanks.

Larry

Comment #69421

Posted by Nidaros on January 9, 2006 11:01 PM (e)

Carol wrote:

First, it hasn’t changed. The original Hebrew Bible is still in the hands of those for whom it was intended. And it is still revered by most of them. And those who choose not to revere it, well, they are exercising their God-given free will.

If the King James Bible was good enough for the apostle Paul, its good enough for me.

Comment #69422

Posted by network geek on January 9, 2006 11:04 PM (e)

Also, I would think that add-on IP scrambling devices for computers would be hot-selling items.

An equally brilliant idea would be street address scrambling devices for residences, to guarantee that your mail never gets to you.

For the technologically unaware, when your browser sends out a request for a page, your IP address indicates where to send that page – scrambling your IP address would be as good as cutting the “in” line on your modem. The IP address is part of a block, which is registered with routers as being assigned to your ISP, which is how the page (made up of IP packets, techically speaking) finds its way to your ISP, which then forwards it to your machine. With dynamic IP addressing, your ISP assigns you an address from a pool of them allocated to your ISP, it doesn’t mean that one is selected at random. Dynamic IP addressing was invented because there is a limited number of IP addresses and we would have run out without it (and we’re getting perilously close to running out anyway).

Comment #69426

Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 11:14 PM (e)

LOL Nidaros, that reminds me of the Texas politician who–it’s been a while, I can’t remember exactly what happened–wanted English-only, because if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for her.

Comment #69431

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 9, 2006 11:26 PM (e)

LOL Nidaros, that reminds me of the Texas politician who—it’s been a while, I can’t remember exactly what happened—wanted English-only, because if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for her.

Or the bumper sticker one now sees here and there in America:

IF IT AIN’T KING JAMES, IT AIN’T THE BIBLE

Comment #69433

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 9, 2006 11:36 PM (e)

WARNING! YOUR COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING AN IP ADDRESS! Every time you connect to the Internet, send email or submit a private information to a web site, you are broadcasting this unique address. With this address, someone can immediately begin attacking your computer! Download BonziProtect to protect yourself now!

If only the ACLU cared about us as much as this brave soul

Comment #69437

Posted by shiva on January 9, 2006 11:57 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #69443

Posted by gregonomic on January 10, 2006 12:06 AM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

gregonomic,

Reading the beginning of your post I thought I might actually become animated to engage you in reasoned discussion, especially since you are probably right about not being the only one here interested in whatever reasons might be given for some of God’s actions. But then your post turned vulgar, insolent and flippant.

Pot calls kettle “black”.

You are apparently neither truly interested in, nor in the frame of mind to sincerely engage in, such a discussion.

That’s OK Carol, I think I have a rough idea how this “discussion” would have gone…

Carol: All you have to do is become fluent in Hebrew, get your hands on the original writings of the prophets (not copies - they might have errors - it has to be the actual original documents), and then believe everything that was written therein. Then, and only then, will you “get it”.
Me: [Forget] that for a game of soldiers!

Comment #69445

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 10, 2006 12:11 AM (e)

Nidaros,

You might wish to know that there was no King James Bible when Paul was alive. You are off by over a thousand years!

The level of knowledge here about the Bible and theology is just pathetic.

Comment #69446

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 10, 2006 12:19 AM (e)

You might wish to know that there was no King James Bible when Paul was alive. You are off by over a thousand years!

The level of knowledge here about the Bible and theology is just pathetic.

Um, Carol? I think Nidaros was, uh, kidding.

I guess if you have literalist tendencies in one part of your life, it eventually permeates everything else…

Comment #69448

Posted by argy stokes on January 10, 2006 12:23 AM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

You might wish to know that there was no King James Bible when Paul was alive. You are off by over a thousand years!

The level of knowledge here about the Bible and theology is just pathetic.

The level of knowledge here about parody and hilarity is just pathetic.

Comment #69450

Posted by gregonomic on January 10, 2006 12:29 AM (e)

Yup, if Carol is anything to go by, this (G|g)od figure chose some pretty dim mortals to entrust his/her message to. Can we be sure they got it all down correctly? Perhaps they didn’t pick up on the bits where he/she was joking?

Comment #69454

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

Comment #69422 posted by network geek on January 9, 2006 11:04 PM

*****Also, I would think that add-on IP scrambling devices for computers would be hot-selling items.*****

An equally brilliant idea would be street address scrambling devices for residences, to guarantee that your mail never gets to you.

Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban. You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject. Furthermore, the subject is off-topic. So please let’s just drop it, OK? Thank you.

Comment #69457

Posted by Ogee on January 10, 2006 12:59 AM (e)

Clouser wrote:

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

*snicker*

Comment #69458

Posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 1:16 AM (e)

“Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more”

Yes, but I’m not you.

“because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban.”

Uh, no, their comment had nothing to do with that, it had to do with threatening to violate a ban.

“You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject. “

You are in an unfair position by virtue of your mental retardation.

Comment #69459

Posted by P.S. on January 10, 2006 1:18 AM (e)

“Furthermore, the subject is off-topic.”

A novel concern for you.

Comment #69460

Posted by gwanngung on January 10, 2006 1:29 AM (e)

Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban.

So, why ARE you responding?

You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject.

So why are you opening your yap about it all the time?

Your position is entirely self-inflicted.

Usually is for morons.

Comment #69466

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 2:24 AM (e)

Comment #69458 posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 01:16 AM

“Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more”

Yes, but I’m not you.

Yes, I know, the management is on your side and so probably would not ban you for discussing the issue. You people have been taking advantage of me because you know that the management is on your side. Furthermore, you have not been warned yet. I have already been warned.

“because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban.”

Uh, no, their comment had nothing to do with that, it had to do with threatening to violate a ban.

And discussing ways to defeat a ban directly concerns threats to defeat a ban. The management has already shown its hostility towards me and would like nothing better than an excuse to ban me. So I decided to avoid the subject of bans entirely.

“You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject. “

You are in an unfair position by virtue of your mental retardation.

And I do not have the opportunity to show that you are the one who is mentally retarded. It’s about time we had a level playing field here.

Comment #69471

Posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 3:14 AM (e)

“Yes, I know, the management is on your side and so probably would not ban you for discussing the issue.”

Not only don’t you don’t know that, you have no evidence pertaining to the matter.

“You people have been taking advantage of me because you know that the management is on your side.”

You poor pathetic whiny little baby.

“Furthermore, you have not been warned yet.”

You have no way of knowing what I have or haven’t been warned about.

“I have already been warned.”

That’s because you have already threatened malicious intent toward this site.

“And discussing ways to defeat a ban directly concerns threats to defeat a ban.”

Look, moron, there’s a huge difference between discussing how to build a bomb and threatening to bomb someone. The “management” explicitly noted that there are very few things that can get you banned; among the things that can’t get you banned is discussing how idiotic your idea of an IP address scrambler is.

“The management has already shown its hostility towards me and would like nothing better than an excuse to ban me.”

The management has shown hostility toward an announcement of malicious intent toward this site. And they already have plenty of excuse to ban you, yet haven’t acted on it.

“So I decided to avoid the subject of bans entirely.”

Obviously not, since you are still discussing it.

“And I do not have the opportunity to show that you are the one who is mentally retarded.”

You obviously do have the opportunity, since you continue to blabber on. What you lack are the capacity and the facts.

“It’s about time we had a level playing field here.”

That’s not possible; I’ve got network design patents hanging on my wall, while you’ve got a Confederate flag on yours.

Comment #69474

Posted by Fernmonkey on January 10, 2006 3:31 AM (e)

Quick return to an earlier topic:

So astrology can be studied in astronomy class as a historical subject.

Yes, and ID can be studied in religious-education class.

But neither one should be studied in science class because they are not science. What’s so difficult about that?

Comment #69493

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 4:53 AM (e)

Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said. One of the chief methods of accomplishing this is to demonstrate the weakness of the scientific evidence that is presented in support of Darwinian evolution in many school classrooms, he said.

I think that speaks volumes on ID claims to be scientific.
Surely if ID was legitimate science its first goals should be to do experiments, gather evidence and get published in scientific journals.

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 07:41 PM (e) (s)


Stephen Elliott,


Since you indicated that you believe in God, surely your conception of Him is sophisticated enough for you to realize that neither you or I, nor any of the created, can read nor understand His “mind”, the creator. His calculations are cosmic in scope, ours are provincial, selfish and mundane….
You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don’t believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

I agree with that. I do believe in God. I do not think I can completely understand God. I do not think God should consult me. I am unsure whether God as I believe is the God of the bible or not, but I am damn sure I do not believe in some of the bibles description/portrayals of God.

Carol, it is you that claims there is only one true source to knowing God, and it involves reading Lamda’s book. I would refute that. I think you show more faith in the bible than God. Personally I prefer to think the bible is wrong and God is better than those ancient people claim.

According to the bible, God created the entire universe, but only cares about a small select group of people. That makes no sense to me. So I choose to put my trust in God, not a maniacal priesthood.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 08:52 PM (e) (s)

The Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia article on IP addresses says —-
“The unique nature of IP addresses makes it possible The ACLU has been so busy attacking ID that it has not had time to attack the above outrageous invasion of privacy….

You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn’t believe me.

Is that a joke?

Are you claiming to be “a darn good hacker” who needs to look up IP address in wikipedia?

What do you think would happen if you scrambled your ip address Larry (the expert hacker)?

Dean Morrison wrote:

Sounds like the Trafalgar Square thing could be a runner if corkscrew would like to join in…- how about trying for ‘Darwin Day’

Sounds good to me. A birthday celebration for Charles Darwin then. Will try to get time off work. The pub I like is called The silver cross.

About 50-100 yards from Trafalgar square on Whitehall. Near admiralty arch and opposite the theatre.

Comment #69507

Posted by Renier on January 10, 2006 5:57 AM (e)

Larry, being a script kiddy does not make you an Ubercracker.

Carol, I am an Atheist, but Stephen Elliott’s description makes a lot more sense to me. Your own imagination does not really weight much in the light of evidence. As Lenny has so many times reminded you, it is just your opinion. You have no evidence to back your opinion that your “God” is the right one, and ALL the zillion other religions are wrong. It’s a bit arrogant to punt your view as such, don’t you think? Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion. Stephen Elliott’s description of his concept of God is closer to nature. I like nature. All I see is nature. All you see is nature… Stephen Elliott’s “God” does not have a problem with the majority of human beings “created” by him, but your God does…

Yes Carol, you have the right to believe what you want to. But before trying to convince us to believe as you do, please state WHY you believe. Then, bring some evidence that your dear Enki exists. I think I am doomed, because I cannot resist bacon… On the other hand, if Heddle is right (or Islam, or Christians), you will be the one to go to hell (I’ll be there too, and the whole of PT). Can you prove that they are wrong Carol?

Comment #69551

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 7:29 AM (e)

The pub I like is called The silver cross.

About 50-100 yards from Trafalgar square on Whitehall. Near admiralty arch and opposite the theatre.

Okay Steve - Corkscrew is on board - e-mail me on : deanmorrison at onetel dot net - and we’ll sort out details - Dawkins is giveing a Darwin day talk in London on the Monday evening - maybe we can find a way to fit that in?

And Larry - thanks for the laughs - if you ever did get banned there’d be howls of protest from those of us who like some humour thrown into our discussions.

You know - I think you might be onto something with your ‘IP scrambling device’ - all you have to do is get a cigarette box, paint it black, fill it with rice or something, and stick a USB cable in the back.
I’m sure there’d be a big market amongst your ‘friends’ for them. And you could probably charge more than for tinfoil hats.
Don’t try this at the library though Larry because that nice lady might get annoyed and you’ll blow your chances of a date.

Comment #69555

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 7:47 AM (e)

IF IT AIN’T KING JAMES, IT AIN’T THE BIBLE

Or maybe not …

From my website:

The fundamentalists’ rabid homophobia has even led some of them to reject the one document that has long served as their one and only “true source” – the King James Bible. When historians were able to confirm that King James was, in fact, himself a homosexual, some fundamentalists released their hellfire: fundamentalist presidential candidate Gary Bauer thundered, “I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way.” (cited in Blaker, 2003, p 26). In response, some fundamentalists have been urging Christians to reject the King James Bible in favor of other translations, and a few fundamentalists have even produced their own “translations” and “paraphrases” which, they declare, tell us all what the Bible really meant to say.

Comment #69557

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 7:54 AM (e)

You people have been taking advantage of me because you know that the management is on your side.

Wow, the PT management is against you, the judges are all against you, the press is against you, the liberal churches are against you.

Sure sucks to be you, doesn’t it. (yawn)

I *love* that massive martyr complex that all fundies have.

Comment #69560

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 7:58 AM (e)

Actually I think Larry is not a fundie, just a crank. But they, too, have the same tendency to yell “HELP!! HELP !! I’M BEING REPRESSED !!!!”

Comment #69563

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 8:02 AM (e)

Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 07:47 AM (e) (s)


From my website:

The fundamentalists’ rabid homophobia has even led some of them to reject the one document that has long served as their one and only “true source” — the King James Bible. When historians were able to confirm that King James was, in fact, himself a homosexual, some fundamentalists released their hellfire: fundamentalist presidential candidate Gary Bauer thundered, “I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way.” (cited in Blaker, 2003, p 26). In response, some fundamentalists have been urging Christians to reject the King James Bible in favor of other translations, and a few fundamentalists have even produced their own “translations” and “paraphrases” which, they declare, tell us all what the Bible really meant to say.

LOL. You wouldn’t get away with inventing this stuff!
People can be really weird. So well demonstrated by good ole boy Larry.

Comment #69564

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 8:02 AM (e)

I think you show more faith in the bible than God.

Ding ding ding!!!!

That’s exactly it with fundies. They don’t worship a god – they worship a Book About God, and are too dumb to tell the difference.

They’re not trying to prove that there is a god — they are trying to prove that their BOOK is god.

They are idol-worshippers. Nothing more.

Comment #69572

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 8:15 AM (e)

Lenny: are you kidding about that King James stuff? That’s amazing, even for fundies.

Renier: “Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion.” I’ll drink to that.

Comment #69595

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 10, 2006 8:49 AM (e)

Reneir,

“you will be the one to go to hell (I’ll be there too, and the whole of PT)”.

Now, that would make hell a truly hellish experience.

Comment #69608

Posted by Renier on January 10, 2006 9:07 AM (e)

Carol, as if heaven with Heddle (and Blast and GoP and all the Baptists) would be better? Please, I am sure even you would not willingly go to such a place.

But, as usual, you missed the point I was trying to make… try reading my previous post again… if you still do not see it, ask the English lads on PT to send you some ale, or perhaps Lenny will sponsor you some Porter.

Comment #69618

Posted by yellow fatty bean on January 10, 2006 9:25 AM (e)

What I enjoy most about our fundie friends is that they regard not being able to teach their mythology to everyone else’s children “oppression”

Comment #69622

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 9:34 AM (e)

Posted by Renier on January 10, 2006 09:07 AM (e) (s)

Carol, as if heaven with Heddle (and Blast and GoP and all the Baptists) would be better? Please, I am sure even you would not willingly go to such a place.

But, as usual, you missed the point I was trying to make… try reading my previous post again… if you still do not see it, ask the English lads on PT to send you some ale, or perhaps Lenny will sponsor you some Porter.

If heaven is allowing those televangelists in, then maybe AC/DC were right with Hell Ain’t a bad place to be.

BTW.

Posted by Renier on January 10, 2006 05:57 AM (e) (s)

Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion…

I believed those things were supposed to be promoted by religion. Then I discovered fundamentalists. If those maniacs are right, then God is not worthy of praise. Atheists are far more reasonable than fundamentalists.

Comment #69628

Posted by JONBOY on January 10, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

I think that some of us make the mistake in not reading all of a post before we form our answers.We are so ready to proffer our own views that we tend to miss some quite pertinent statements.Read my post(69213)
then read David Heddle,s surprisingly honest reply to it(69222)
Many of the subsequent posts would have made a great deal more sense in light of Davids statements.We all know now (if we did,nt before)just how people like Carol and David view the world.

Comment #69635

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on January 10, 2006 10:08 AM (e)

Larry, are you implying that judges rule cases depending on their personal views rather than on evidence and the law? If so this simply demonstrate your ignorance on the rules governing trials. BTW, what else could the fundies have hoped for in this trial? The judge is a Bush nominated, protestant christian, Santorum blessed appointee and the ID still manages to loose BIG TIME. That shows how shallow, vacuous and non existing the evidence for ID is. Even more so, it shows the dishonesty and moral bankrupcy of the major proponents of ID that after their loss have gone back to the recourse of personal attacks.

Comment #69657

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 10:41 AM (e)

hey Larry, two points:

1) You are very good at what you do. I have a friend who does the same thing on a few forums, he is a theatre guy and does a lot of acting. For fun he assumes an identity in a forum and basically stirs stuff up like you. For him it is fine tuning his acting craft while also having fun getting people to react to him. Your act here is pretty impressive and I bet you are constantly cracking yourself up. Take this as a compliment, you’re pretty good.

2) Have you been to the After The Bar Closes PT forum? You can probably get away with more over there than here.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43c38cf8a96cfa14;act=SF;f=14

Comment #69658

Posted by Flint on January 10, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Larry, are you implying that judges rule cases depending on their personal views rather than on evidence and the law? If so this simply demonstrate your ignorance on the rules governing trials.

But if Larry is wrong, how do we explain the otherwise astonishingly consistent disagreement on the Supreme Court between Ginsberg and Scalia? These judges hear the same evidence and follow the same rules. And Larry also correctly points out that the judges hearing the Cobb County appeal do not seem to agree with John Jones’ view despite the notable similarity of the verbiage being judged. Personal views matter.

Of course, the creationists seem to feel that personal views are all that *should* matter. It may well be incomprehensible to them that everything they encounter in life is not placed there by God as a challenge to their faith.

Comment #69668

Posted by AC on January 10, 2006 11:04 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

Since you indicated that you believe in God, surely your conception of Him is sophisticated enough for you to realize that neither you or I, nor any of the created, can read nor understand His “mind”, the creator. His calculations are cosmic in scope, ours are provincial, selfish and mundane.

Fun fact: The idea of inscrutible, transmoral gods has been used throughout history by scoundrels seeking to disguise or excuse their own immorality. Reason enough to be skeptical.

Renier wrote:

Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion.

Reason alone is worth more than any religion because it facilitates all the other things to a degree religion cannot imagine, much less provide.

On the other hand, if Heddle is right (or Islam, or Christians), you will be the one to go to hell (I’ll be there too, and the whole of PT).

Brother, we are already there.

Comment #69673

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:09 AM (e)

Stephen Elliot, take a look at Secular Humanism. You might find it preferable to jealous and vicious gods.

Comment #69716

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:09 AM (e) (s)

Stephen Elliot, take a look at Secular Humanism. You might find it preferable to jealous and vicious gods.

Just did. Sounds pretty cool. Thing is though that I do believe in God. To deny that would mean lying to myself. I definitely think organised religion gives God a bad press though.

Another thing. Is anyone else having problems with PT today? This page took about 20 mins to “download”. Doubt it is my PC as all other sites are working fine. Suppose it could be my link.

Comment #69725

Posted by matt on January 10, 2006 12:59 PM (e)

jeesus is my homeboy dawgs. you guys should sopt acruging and be friends. love jeebus.

Comment #69726

Posted by ben on January 10, 2006 1:00 PM (e)

Stephen Elliot, take a look at ——————ism. You might find it preferable to jealous and vicious gods.

Anything is preferable in my book. But whence the need to find an -ism to align with? Learn, think, experience, be. Why does one’s personal belief and thought system need to be some kind of exclusive club?

Comment #69730

Posted by matt on January 10, 2006 1:11 PM (e)

were you there when the world was created? no, so shut up douche

Comment #69731

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

Maybe PT should have a place where commenters can post links to new ID/evolution news. In lieu of that, here you go:

Fletcher lays out agenda
Speech mixes GOP stands, health reform
By Ryan Alessi, Jack Brammer And John Stamper
HERALD-LEADER FRANKFORT BUREAU

FRANKFORT - Gov. Ernie Fletcher last night laid out his 2006 agenda that hits on key components of the Republican platform, such as capping lawsuit awards, encouraging the teaching of “intelligent design” and enacting so-called right-to-work legislation that addresses labor unions.

Comment #69734

Posted by Corkscrew on January 10, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

Link to steve s’s news story

Comment #69743

Posted by jim on January 10, 2006 2:18 PM (e)

matt wrote:

were you there when the world was created? no, so shut up douche

I *was* there AND I was on time. God was running a bit late though. I guess I can’t fault him too much, he had a lot on his mind that week.

Comment #69745

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 2:21 PM (e)

…one weeks work and he’s been grouchy ever since…

Comment #69749

Posted by ex-fundi on January 10, 2006 2:47 PM (e)

Aureola Nominee in #69162 wrote:

And when “an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation” gets more educated, and learns more science, and therefore starts to “interpret otherwise” parts that previously were thought to be literal… what happens?

The same thing that happened to me: they get shown the door and given a foot in the ass to drive the message home.

Then they whine about nearly 100% of their kids leaving the church as soon as they graduate from high school.

(shrug)

Comment #69752

Posted by ex-fundi on January 10, 2006 2:58 PM (e)

David Heddle in #69192 wrote:

Well, in a nutshell because the bible makes very lofty self-referential claims, if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies —and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real.

And since there are parts of the Bible that are provably in error, then it is a pack of lies.

Thank you for demonstrating the rationality of my move from believer to atheist. I knew wading through a couple hundred comments would be worth my time.

Comment #69755

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 10, 2006 3:10 PM (e)

Basically,

that comment by Mr. Heddle ignored the trivially evident fact that “the Bible” is not a monolithic document, but on the contrary a rather haphazard collection of writings.

They are not “self-referential”, as there’s no conveniently clear “self”, but a multiplicity of sources, each with its own tradition and political/religious axe to grind, layered on by centuries upon centuries of after-the-fact editing.

Calling it “Scripture”, as if it was a coherent whole, is merely the sleight of hand of tricksters; and people, even very smart people, trying to make everything seem coherent and somehow sensible, look to me not unlike those Star Trek fans endeavouring to reconcile every instance of shields vs. transport use or superluminal firing of weapons on the show.

Fascinating, yet ultimately futile.

Comment #69756

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 3:10 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 02:21 PM (e) (s)

…one weeks work and he’s been grouchy ever since…

LOL. Close but no cigar. 6 days work, don’t forget HE had a rest on Sunday.

Comment #69758

Posted by Shirley Knott on January 10, 2006 3:13 PM (e)

Has no one noticed how outraged Herr Heddle is that atheists can be described as having an agenda, yet how blind he is to the equal criticism which can be made about him?
If it is illegitimate to criticize the Bible if one is coming from a position of needing to prove it wrong, is it not equally illegitmiate to reject criticism when adopting a position of needing to see it never proven wrong?
Mote, eye, beam, Heddle.

And Carol continues to amuse, with her accelerating descent into madness.

This used to be such a nice neighborhood.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
(recovering nicely from surgery, thanks for asking)

Comment #69760

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 3:42 PM (e)

Comment #69493 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 04:53 AM

*****You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn’t believe me.******

Is that a joke?

Are you claiming to be “a darn good hacker” who needs to look up IP address in wikipedia?

What do you think would happen if you scrambled your ip address Larry (the expert hacker)?

OK, it was just a joke. But one of the managers here did not think that it was funny, and threatened to ban me just for joking about it.

I am not really a hacker — but I am a fast learner. And the managers here know darn well that there is no way to stop someone who is really determined to defeat a commenter ban. Information on how to defeat commenter bans is readily available. You can even change computers if you have to — some people have access to several computers.

One of the things that I have learned is that dial-up connections generally use dynamic IP addressing, meaning that you get a new IP number each time you access the Internet. On the other hand, broadband cable connections generally use static IP addresses, so I presume that you cannot change your IP address when using this type of connection.

Another way that websites identify users is by means of “Internet cookies” – files that a website deposits on your hard drive so that the website will recognize you the next time you access the website. There is software available for deleting cookies.

Also, these commenter bans that are based on identifying your computer are unfair to other users of the same computer. Sometimes these other computer users don’t even know you, like in an Internet Cafe.

I read that Dave Scot was banned from this website. And I recently read that Dave Scot’s website banned Mr. Christopher for something that Mr. Christopher said on this website (see Comment #68872 on this thread) !!!! See http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/636#comments

These commenter bans should be stopped. If website managers find a comment to be truly intolerable (because of repeated cussing, racial slurs, etc.), they can just delete it.

Scary Larry

Comment #69761

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 3:46 PM (e)

“Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers.”

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that ‘algebra’, algorithm’, and ‘cypher’ are from Arabic.

The Arabs also brought us the medical notion that sickness can be spread from one person to another and thus began isolating the sick from the well populations so that the sick could be treated while avoiding infecting others.

Comment #69762

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 03:42 PM (e) (s)

OK, it was just a joke. But one of the managers here did not think that it was funny, and threatened to ban me just for joking about it.

I am not really a hacker —- but I am a fast learner…

Larry,
It is pretty difficult to get banned on this site. Well it is difficult to get banned by commenting. Threats against the site would (in any rational persons view) deserve an instant ban.

Dave Scott was banned from here. So was J. A. Davison. But both posted for a long time and were (at least in JADs case) far more abusive than you have been.

I think you are pretty safe Larry. So long as you stick to ridiculous arguments and lay off the threats.

BTW. When you claim to be a fast learner, are you being deliberately ironical?

Comment #69764

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

“Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers.”

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that ‘algebra’, algorithm’, and ‘cypher’ are from Arabic.

Is that true?
I thought evolutionary theory was started by Darwin (and his contemporaries).
I know that Arabic countries Circa 1000 AD were more advanced mathematically and scientifically than European Christian countries. I have seen no references to them having an evolutionary theory though.

Comment #69765

Posted by David Heddle on January 10, 2006 4:07 PM (e)

I haven’t been banned, but PZ disemvowels my posts on his threads. That is, in my opinion, more dishonest than banning–because it makes a mockery of someone’s post and leaves their name associated with it–even though they did not write is as presented. Its sole purpose is to humiliate. In that sense, it is a perfect match for PZ’s character.

Comment #69766

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

Posted by David Heddle on January 10, 2006 04:07 PM (e) (s)

I haven’t been banned, but PZ disemvowels my posts on his threads. That is, in my opinion, more dishonest than banning—because it makes a mockery of someone’s post and leaves their name associated with it—even though they did not write is as presented. Its sole purpose is to humiliate. In that sense, it is a perfect match for PZ’s character.

I must admit that I dislike the disemvoweling. It looks bad.

Comment #69769

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

Comment #69765

Posted numerous times by David Heddle:

I haven’t been banned, but PZ disemvowels my posts on his threads.

So disemvowel his comments on your threads, and quit whining about it.

Comment #69770

Posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

Dr Heddle

What puzzles me is why you want to post here. Your field of expertise is, I believe, cosmology, and you are a religious apologist. This is a blogsite where “The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.”

No-one here seems particularly interested in what you have to say, and you only succeed in irritating people who then respond accordingly. You could avoid PZ’s disemvowelling and general opprobrium by posting in more sympathetic arenas. Why, then, do you do it?

Comment #69772

Posted by David Heddle on January 10, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

Alan,

The subject of this post involved biblical alternatives to evolution. My comments on this thread began with my agreeing with Carol that the bible is not inconsistent with evolution. I did not interrupt a thread that was discussing some detail of evolutionary theory. I think I was at least as on-topic as most of the commenters.

Steve S,

Why am I not suprised that your view is:

1) Banned on Dembski’s blog–how disgusting
2) Disemvowelled on PT–you deserved it and stop whining

Oh–I know why I am not surprised–you are the same steve s that argues that the cosmologocal constant is only small in some units and it’s only a problem of immaturity in our calculations–do you still believe that given yet another famous non-ID physicist (Susskind) has published a book whose purpose is, for the most part, to find a solution to the CC problem, the problem you find so trivial?

Comment #69773

Posted by Rich on January 10, 2006 4:44 PM (e)

deliberately ironical: deliberately ironic?

Comment #69776

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 4:49 PM (e)

Comment #69474
Posted by Fernmonkey on January 10, 2006 03:31 AM

Quick return to an earlier topic:

****So astrology can be studied in astronomy class as a historical subject.****

Yes, and ID can be studied in religious-education class.

But neither one should be studied in science class because they are not science. What’s so difficult about that?

I feel that ID and evolution should be studied together so that they can be closely compared. So if they cannot be studied together in science classes because of church-state separation concerns, then I feel that they should be studied together in philosophy classes. I am serious. I don’t see the point of studying them in different classes – maybe even years apart – when they are so closely connected.

Actually, I think that it should be OK to just teach the non-religious, non-supernatural parts of ID – e.g., irreducible complexity – in science classes. I think that that would be the best solution.

Comment #69777

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 4:52 PM (e)

Posted by Rich on January 10, 2006 04:44 PM (e) (s)

deliberately ironical: deliberately ironic?

LOL. Probably. I got the expression from Good Will Hunting.
At the end few scenes when the Psychology professor is talking to the Fields Medal winning Maths professor. About a reunion.

Comment #69778

Posted by ben on January 10, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

Actually, I think that it should be OK to just teach the non-religious, non-supernatural parts of ID — e.g., irreducible complexity — in science classes. I think that that would be the best solution.

Actually, the full scientific content of the IC concept as it relates to evolutionary biology is comprehensively covered in every science class. Fortunately this exacts a scant burden on class workload, given that that content is precisely null.

Comment #69779

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

Minor correction to Dave’s big pile of crap:

“1) Banned on Dembski’s blog—how funny”

Anyway, you have full permission to disemvowel me if I ever give a crap what you say and choose to visit your blog, which I won’t and won’t, and probably PZ feels the same. Let us know if the bible ever tells you whether the CC is zero or nonzero. We atheists really care a great deal, don’t you know.

Comment #69781

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 04:49 PM (e) (s)


I feel that ID and evolution should be studied together so that they can be closely compared. So if they cannot be studied together in science classes because of church-state separation concerns, then I feel that they should be studied together in philosophy classes. I am serious. I don’t see the point of studying them in different classes — maybe even years apart — when they are so closely connected.

Actually, I think that it should be OK to just teach the non-religious, non-supernatural parts of ID — e.g., irreducible complexity — in science classes. I think that that would be the best solution.

Larry,
Why are you so far separated from reason?

ANY other scientific hypothesis was never taught as science, until it had convinced scientists that it was valid.

Why is ID a special case?

Plate tectonics was disputed by the mainstream scientific community for a long time. It was correct BTW. But the reason it became accepted as science was that its supporters went and did experiments, reported findings, made predictions etc.

Eventually the evidence won scientists over.

Have you not yet wondered why ID claims to be science, yet wants to dodge the scientific way?

Comment #69783

Posted by David Heddle on January 10, 2006 5:04 PM (e)

steve s,

The bible confirms that we live in a universe with stars. That implies a small (120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected by everyone except you) but non zero CC–just like Weinberg said via his Anthropic prediction. Does that answer your question?

Comment #69784

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 04:56 PM (e) (s)

Minor correction to Dave’s big pile of crap:

“1) Banned on Dembski’s blog—how funny”

Anyway, you have full permission to disemvowel me if I ever give a crap what you say and choose to visit your blog, which I won’t and won’t, and probably PZ feels the same. Let us know if the bible ever tells you whether the CC is zero or nonzero. We atheists really care a great deal, don’t you know.

I quite like most of Dr. Heddles posts. At least he makes me think (sometimes), unlike Larry and Carol.

Yes I know I am in a minority. But I do not consider Dr. Heddle a troll. I was far worse when I first came here.

Comment #69785

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 5:17 PM (e)

Oh, well, the bible mentions stars. To think I questioned its infallibility. What a fool I’ve been.

Anyway Dave, you’re so behind the times. Me, I’ve moved on to a new fine tuning–my height as measured in universe width units. Measured as such, my height is around 10^-23 uwu. Do you understand how fine tuned this is? How sensitive? Why, if I was only a “hair” bigger, say 10^-22 uwu, I’d be dead of lung collapse etc. If I were a hair smaller, say 10^-24, well, there’s no way you can get an adult human brain into a skull 10x smaller. I sit around in awe of this tuning. Like Dave’s told us before, even if there are physical laws which demand the observed value be in a certain range, that’s just proof the laws were set by god.

Praise be unto him.

Comment #69787

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 5:19 PM (e)

Comment #69770 posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 04:24 PM

Dr Heddle –

What puzzles me is why you want to post here. Your field of expertise is, I believe, cosmology, and you are a religious apologist. This is a blogsite where “The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.”

I noticed that this website received an award from Scientific American magazine. I feel that to be truly deserving of this award, this website should welcome all viewpoints on the controversy over evolution theory, and not just be a place where evolutionists come for mutual back-scratching.

Comment #69790

Posted by Ubernatural on January 10, 2006 5:26 PM (e)

There is no controversy.

You are welcome here.

This site defends good science, and therefore there are many people here who have much to say regarding your many wild claims.

Comment #69791

Posted by ben on January 10, 2006 5:26 PM (e)

I noticed that this website received an award from Scientific American magazine. I feel that to be truly deserving of this award, this website should welcome all viewpoints on the controversy over evolution theory, and not just be a place where evolutionists come for mutual back-scratching.

Which misses the point of Alan Fox’s comment, that Heddle’s viewpoints, however fascinating you might find them, rarely have anything to do with evolutionary theory and are generally, as Fox said, religious apologetics. I see Heddle as being here to offhandedly attack the typical and tedious ID straw man that evolutionary theory presents an explanation for the origin of the universe, which of course it does not.

Comment #69801

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 6:10 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

You can even change computers if you have to —- some people have access to several computers.

but doesn’t the nice lady at the library ever wonder why you have to get up and keep changing seats? Maybe she thinks you’re playing solitaire and you think you might have better luck on a different machine. Go on - ask her for a date Larry…

Comment #69804

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

I feel that to be truly deserving of this award, this website should welcome all viewpoints on the controversy over evolution theory, and not just be a place where evolutionists come for mutual back-scratching.

You felt that email was privileged. Nobody cares what you feel.

Comment #69810

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

Comment #69781 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 05:02 PM

Larry,
Why are you so far separated from reason?

ANY other scientific hypothesis was never taught as science, until it had convinced scientists that it was valid.

Why is ID a special case?

Evolution theory is no more scientific than the irreducible complexity concept of ID. Evolution theory cannot be used to make predictions of macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed. The only predictions that evolution theory can make in regard to macro-evolution are predictions of likely future discoveries of more circumstantial evidence of macro-evolution. For example, the fossil record can be used to make predictions of likely future discoveries of “missing link” fossils. And comparative anatomy can be used to make predictions about genetics, and vice-versa. And so forth.

A lot of evolution theory is not actually science but is just wild speculation and philosophizing. A good example is the concept of “punctuated equilibrium” (PE), which is widely accepted by scientists today. PE is the idea that evolution occurred by short spurts followed by long plateaus. But PE is not supported by any evidence but is actually supported by an absence of evidence – the absence of “missing link” fossils. PE supposedly explains the absence of missing link fossils because the spurts of evolution were supposedly too short to leave a fossil record.

Comment #69811

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 6:36 PM (e)

Lenny: are you kidding about that King James stuff?

Serious as a heart attack on a hot sumemr’s day.

That’s amazing, even for fundies.

NEVER EVER, under any circumstances whatsoever, underestimate (1) the ability of bigots to be bigoted, or (2) the ability of stupid people to be stupid.

Every time I’ve thought the fundies couldn’t POSSIBLY get any nuttier, they always go and prove me wrong.

Comment #69815

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

Thing is though that I do believe in God. To deny that would mean lying to myself. I definitely think organised religion gives God a bad press though.

Dude, go Zen. Lets you think whatever the heck you damn well want to.

:)

Comment #69816

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 6:46 PM (e)

No Larry, ‘PE’ stands for ‘Physical Excercise’ - something you might get more of if you ask that nice Library for a date.

Comment #69818

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 6:49 PM (e)

I see it’s time again for my periodic reminder to Heddle.

Back when Caesar gained power in Rome, he had a nice big parade for himself. During it, he had a slave stand beside him in the chariot, for the sole purpose of leaning over every few minutes and whispering in his ear, “You are just a man”.

I am happy to perform that role for Mr Heddle. See, Mr Heddle sometimes forgets that he’s just a man, and seems to think that he is some sort of Divine Spokesman For God ™© or something. He’s, uh, not. So whenever Mr Heddle starts prancing too much on his high holy horse, I step in to remind him that his religious opinions are just that — his opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow his religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Mr Heddle, you are just a man.

Comment #69819

Posted by matt on January 10, 2006 6:49 PM (e)

why do you poeple care about the veiws on how the world was created? beleive what you want. why should it matter whos right or wrong? idiots everyone is entitled to an opinion and set of beleifs.

Comment #69820

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

Hey Heddle, Carol doesn’t seem to want to answer my simple questions. How about you?

What makes your religious opinions any better than anyone else’s (other than your say-so)?

Is Carol right in her opinion that the New Testament is a load of crap, or are YOU right in YOUR opinion that it’s not? And how can we tell?

Why do you think science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions, anyway?

Comment #69829

Posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 7:10 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman

My question to Dr Heddle (which he didn’t answer) was why does he want to post here. I am the last person to suggest banning anyone, not even you… well, maybe I would draw the line with Ex USMC Sgt Springer DaveScot.

Comment #69831

Posted by historic myth buster on January 10, 2006 7:25 PM (e)

Stephen Elliot wrote:

“Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers.”

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that ‘algebra’, algorithm’, and ‘cypher’ are from Arabic.

Is that true?
I thought evolutionary theory was started by Darwin (and his contemporaries).

How, Stephen, can you possibly be taking “they” as referring to “Evolutionary theory”? Rather, it refers to “practices” – those scientific practices from which evolutionary theory (like all scientific theories) proceeds. Christians like to lay claim to many things that they have no claim to, such as the invention of science and universities. (This is reminiscent of the old joke about the Russians laying claim to inventing all sorts of things they didn’t, institutionalized by the Chekov character of Star Trek.)

Comment #69834

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 10, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

Aureole,

I must disagree with your sloppy analysis of how the Bible came to us. There exists an extended family of people, known as Israelites or Jews, who have carefully and meticulously preserved, recorded, revered and cherished that core document which later became known to the world as the Bible. These people also were persecuted and frequently killed for adhering to its teachings for thousands of years, and yet they (miraculously) persevered. God was not mistaken in choosing THEM to preserve that document. Indicative of the care they took of this document of singular importance to them is the fact that after thousands of years of handwriting copies and passing them on from generation to generation, the period when errors and intentional revisions were most likely to occur (before the printing presses started rolling), there were only a handful of letters and words in dispute out of over 300,000 words (I refer to the Hebrew pentateuch). This was then in turn confirmed when the dead sea scrolls were found, dating back to over two thousand years ago. (I have also seen partial documents going back another five hundred years, to the seventh century BCE, that were identical to those segments in today’s Bible.)

Your claim that the Bible is a patchwork has nothing to support it but the latter day revisionism of so called “scholars” with jobs to justify, most of whom cannot even claim fluency in Hebrew, who base these claims on the silly business of “literary style”. It is no different than many of the other revisionisms going on around us all the time (like Larry’s holocaust revisionism). It’s just people making noise for their own motives. I would hope you would not be so naive as to buy into that baseless stuff. As a scientist I would expect a more sophisticated sense of discernment from you.

Comment #69836

Posted by ben on January 10, 2006 7:42 PM (e)

I must disagree with your sloppy analysis of how the Bible came to us. There exists an extended family of people, known as Israelites…

Yada yada yada. What does this, or anything else Carol Clouser ever posts here, have to do with evolutionary theory, even in the most tangential way? More OT religious apologetics, ultimately just boring and obnoxious prosyletizing.

Comment #69837

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 10, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

Alan,

I second the sentiments of Stephen Elliott. David Heddle adds much to this blog and I too would not want to see him go.

You seem to want thread after thread here to be exclusively engaged in Dembski bashing. How boring. And evil.

Comment #69838

Posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 7:46 PM (e)

*****You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn’t believe me.******

Is that a joke?

Are you claiming to be “a darn good hacker” who needs to look up IP address in wikipedia?

What do you think would happen if you scrambled your ip address Larry (the expert hacker)?

OK, it was just a joke. But one of the managers here did not think that it was funny, and threatened to ban me just for joking about it.

Larry has stupidly or dishonestly or both confused two different candidates for “a joke”. No one threatened to ban Larry for joking about being “a darn good hacker” so ignorant that he has to go to Wikipedia to find out what an IP address is – not that he was joking about that. The real joke here is clearly Larry himself.

Comment #69842

Posted by ben on January 10, 2006 7:53 PM (e)

Alan…You seem to want thread after thread here to be exclusively engaged in Dembski bashing. How boring. And evil.

I don’t see anything Alan Fox said here that justifies the claim that he wants PT threads to consist of only Dembski bashing, much less calling him evil. On the other hand, your primary (only) subject of interest seems to be yakking about your superior knowledge of the real bible, which as far as I can tell touches on PT’s subject matter not at all, and places you firmly in the camp of those adding nothing.

Comment #69846

Posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

Carol,

If this were a blog devoted to cosmology or religious apologetics, I wouldn’t be puzzled at Dr. Heddle posting here. Repeating myself, asking him why he should want to post here (and not getting an answer) is not the same as voting to ban him.

I am also puzzled at how you think your posts here might improve the sales of Mr Landa’s oeuvre.

Comment #69853

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

Comment #69838 posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 07:46 PM
Larry has stupidly or dishonestly or both confused two different candidates for “a joke”. No one threatened to ban Larry for joking about being “a darn good hacker” so ignorant that he has to go to Wikipedia to find out what an IP address is — not that he was joking about that. The real joke here is clearly Larry himself.

One of the managers of this website sent me a threatening personal email which I quoted here. And I looked at the Wikipedia article to check the assertion that IP addresses are used to ban commenters. One of the things I found out in the article was that the dynamic IP addressing generally used in dial-up connections is so effective in hiding the sending computer’s identity that even the cops can have trouble tracing it.

Anyway, haven’t we kicked this dead horse enough?

Comment #69855

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 8:44 PM (e)

You made a fool of yourself Larry .. admit it.

Comment #69856

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 8:47 PM (e)

Comment #69837

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 10, 2006 07:45 PM (e) (s)

You seem to want thread after thread here to be exclusively engaged in Dembski bashing. How boring. And evil.

If bashing Dembski is wrong, then baby, I don’t wanna be right.

Comment #69860

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 10, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

Thank you for giving us such a clear glimpse into your mindset. I think I now know how to interpret pretty much anything you say from now on.

I’m sure you have some means of putting all those animals on the ark – or some explanation about all he needed was a few ‘kinds’. But spare me.

Could you tell us how Noah lived to be 600, tho? Might make Heddle’s beliefs about Methuselah look a little more ‘scientific’. Were years only a month long back then, or something?

Comment #69872

Posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

One of the managers of this website sent me a threatening personal email which I quoted here.

Indeed you quoted it, but you have repeatedly misrepresented its content, which was about your threat to come back under a pseudonym if you are banned, not about IP address bans or ways to get around them. If you were halfway clever you might have commented on the peculiarly circular logic of threatening to ban someone for no reason other than their claiming that, if banned, they would violate it. It reminds me of a case where someone was arrested with the sole charge being resisting arrest.

Anyway, haven’t we kicked this dead horse enough?

Not at all, Larry … THUMP!

Comment #69876

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 10:09 PM (e)

so called “scholars” with jobs to justify

Named “Landa”?

Comment #69877

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

David Heddle adds much to this blog and I too would not want to see him go.

Smmmoooooccchhhh.

Done kissing butt, Carol? Great.

Now then, would you mind telling me why your opinion that the New Testament is a load of crap, is better than Heddle’s opinion that it’s not?

Oh, and you still haven’t told me why science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions (or Heddle’s).

Comment #69878

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

Yada yada yada. What does this, or anything else Carol Clouser ever posts here, have to do with evolutionary theory, even in the most tangential way? More OT religious apologetics, ultimately just boring and obnoxious prosyletizing.

It’s better than hearing her advertising Landa’s holy book. (shrug)

Anyway, I encourage Carol to keep posting. She demonstrates clearly (along with her pen pal Heddle) just what ID is really all about.

Although I *do* wish that Heddle and Carol would settle, between themselves, which of them is really the Divinely Annointed Spokesperson For God ™©. Some of us mere mortals get kinda confused when we have two Spokespersons ™©, one of which thinks the New Testament is the word of God, and one of whihc thinks the New Testament is a load of crap.

I wish they’d get that all figured out, somehow. Maybe a nice religious war or inquisition would settle the matter ….?

Comment #69891

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 11:05 PM (e)

Comment #69855 posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 08:44 PM
You made a fool of yourself Larry .. admit it.

I admitted that I was only kidding when I said that I am a “darn good hacker.” Now as for all those people who told me that they were absolutely sure that the Dover defendants never tried to assert privilege for the attorney-client message that Judge Jones bashed them with in the Dover opinion – when are they going to admit that they were only kidding?

I was not the one who started the flame wars that are cluttering up this website.

Comment #69893

Posted by carol clouser on January 10, 2006 11:08 PM (e)

Arden,

What I meant to say was that Genesis 7 is meant to be interpreted literally (as opposed to metaphorically or allegorically) and yet need not be in conflict with science. I base this on the reasoning presented in my other posts on this and other threads.

The bone of contention here is the Hebrew phrase ARETZ and sometimes KOL HA-ARETZ. The popular translation is “the earth” for the former and “all the earth” for the latter. But the fact is that in 90% of the occasions where that expression appears in the Bible it definately must mean “the land” or “all the land” referring to a previousely delineated area. Examples are, “and all the land (ARETZ) became dark” referring to Egypt, and “the peoples of all the land (KOL HA-ARETZ) came to Egypt (for food)” referring to the Cannanites. These cannot reasonably refer to all the earth.

Genesis 7 refers to a flood occuring in “the land” discussed previously (Genesis 1 - 6), namely Sumeria, roughly coincident with the plains of southern Mesapotamia. Gathering the living creatures inhabiting that limited area is a much more manageable task than doing so for the entire planet. But there probably also is an element of a miracle in this. There is no denying that miracles are part of the Bible. And I don’t think that is in conflict with science. It is outside the domain of science, but not contradicted by it.

As far as “kinds” are concerned, you don’t expect the Bible to take on the role of a science primer. As I have proposed previously, the general rule is that the Bible speaks to ordinary people in the manner in which ordinary people speak while engaged in oridnary, everyday conversation. (Except where it clearly does not wish to do so.) So “kinds” refer to whatever ordinary people are likely to call “kinds”. The same applies to the bat referred to (perhaps) in Leviticus as a bird.

There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection.

Comment #69908

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 10, 2006 11:52 PM (e)

There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not

But why do you bother ‘proving’ the scientific accuracy of the OT when you can simply take anything that’s scientifically impossible and slap a big ‘MIRACLE’ label on it? It renders all the rest of the ‘scientific’ explanations completely vacuous.

What you said originally is:

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

Bullshit. If you have to invoke miracles TWO times in order to ‘explain’ a single chapter of a single book of the Bible, then that material is not ‘consistent with science’. You can’t have it both ways. Miracles are not part of the scientific method.

Comment #69912

Posted by gregonomic on January 11, 2006 12:04 AM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection.

No, but we can use observation as a method of verifying how accurate the claim of Noah’s age might have been.

How many 600 y.o. people do you know, Carol? What’s the Guinness Book of Records’ entry for the oldest living human? How many miracles do you observe on an average day?

You might be predisposed to believing in miracles, and therefore accepting the possibility of a 600 y.o. H. sapiens, Carol.

The rest of us, however, tend to rely on what we see in our everyday lives. That’s how we come to the conclusion that ‘The Bible’ (and yes, by ‘The Bible’, I mean your version, along with all the others) is just a collection of fanciful stories written by a bunch of ignoramuses who didn’t have a friggin’ clue what was going on in the world around them.

And really, Carol, you haven’t typed anything to convince me that you are significantly more advanced in knowledge than they were. Which, in this day and age, is a crying shame.

Comment #69928

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 11, 2006 12:54 AM (e)

Arden,

Your position makes no sense. You know, and you know that I know that you know, that the Bible is full of God and miracles right from the get go. How many entities do you know that can say “let there be…” and then, presto, “and there was…”? So why are you asking me about chapter 7? Why not just pick on chapter one?

I am not, as you assert, engaged in “proving” the “scientific accuracy” of the Bible and I certainly do not claim that miracles are part of the scientific method. I clearly stated just the opposite in my very last post! I DO assert that science cannot be used as a basis for rejection of the Bible. And you have provided nothing to persuade me or anyone otherwise.

No, you cannot slap the word miracle on everything and be done with it. If the Bible would state something that science demonstrates is highly likely to be false (let alone “proves” to be false) you would have a valid and significant point. (See, my approach is falsifiable.) If, for example, the Bible made it clear that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that would conflict with science. Science claims that is false. Slapping the word miracle on this would solve nothing.

gregonomic,

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know whether or not we see miracles in our daily lives. Some philosopher (forget the name) has stated that “nature is merely a set of miracles we have gotten used to and take for granted.” I am not arguing quite that, but science cannot demonstrate otherwise. Your entire argument in the above post is utterly without merit and you know it.

Aredn and gregonomic,

Why do both of your posts turn at the end to profanity and insults? Because you must desperately believe that the Bible is what you say it is, and you finally realize that your supporting arguments have been shreded and rendered impotent. Insults and profanity are the last refuge of the defeated atheist.

Comment #69933

Posted by Wayne Francis on January 11, 2006 1:03 AM (e)

Comment # 69810

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Comment #69810
Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 06:34 PM (e) (s)
Comment #69781 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 05:02 PM
Larry,
Why are you so far separated from reason?
ANY other scientific hypothesis was never taught as science, until it had convinced scientists that it was valid.
Why is ID a special case?
Evolution theory is no more scientific than the irreducible complexity concept of ID. Evolution theory cannot be used to make predictions of macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed. The only predictions that evolution theory can make in regard to macro-evolution are predictions of likely future discoveries of more circumstantial evidence of macro-evolution. For example, the fossil record can be used to make predictions of likely future discoveries of “missing link” fossils. And comparative anatomy can be used to make predictions about genetics, and vice-versa. And so forth.
A lot of evolution theory is not actually science but is just wild speculation and philosophizing. A good example is the concept of “punctuated equilibrium” (PE), which is widely accepted by scientists today. PE is the idea that evolution occurred by short spurts followed by long plateaus. But PE is not supported by any evidence but is actually supported by an absence of evidence — the absence of “missing link” fossils. PE supposedly explains the absence of missing link fossils because the spurts of evolution were supposedly too short to leave a fossil record.

Larry how about this prediction from way over 100 years ago.
Prediction - humans have a common ancestor with other great apes.
This was made before we knew about chromosomes and DNA.
When we learned about chromosomes we found that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while other great apes have 24.
This according to evolutionary theory means 1 of 2 things Either humans some how lost a chromosome via some event or the other lineages of great apes some how all gained a pair of chromosomes after humans split from the lineage or hominids lost a pair. 4 different events would have needed to occur creating the new pair of chromosomes to fit what we observe. As unlikely as that is all the new chromosomes would also need to sport the same functionality. Very highly unlikely event. So Achems Razor suggests that Hominids must have some how lost a pair of chromosome. Now seeing that deleting an entire pair of chromosomes in any of the great apes would be a fatal event how could we both share a common ancestor with other great apes AND have one less pair of chromosomes? Well that points to a chromosomal fusion event. An event where 2 chromosomes literally fuse together into 1. How in the world could we show this? When we compare the human genome to other great apes almost everything lines up perfectly. Well minus our lost chromosome. But WAIT. Look a little closer and if we take the one that doesn’t match up in the human genome, chromosome #2 we see that we can take the last 2 chromosomes and stick them together and we have a chromosome that looks surprisingly like our Chromosome #2. Lets not just take that as the evidence. So if we did evolve from a common ancestor shared by other great apes we should see evidence of this fusion event that occurred in Chromosome #2. Seems Chromosomes are pretty well structured. At the ends of chromosomes there are these nice little stretches of DNA we call telomeres, look that up on Wiki too. We would expect to see these telomeres in chromosome #2 where we normally would not see them, i.e. in the middle of the chromosome where we thing the fusion event occurred. Thanks the genome project we can do just that and what do we see? We a what appear to be the telomeres from the 2 chromosomes that would have fused together from the chimp and gorilla genomes. The closer we looked the more evidence showed this to be true.

So for Evolution this fits in quite nicely. 1 of the many mechanism of evolution, fusion events, occurred millions of years ago in our linage and not in the other great apes and the signs of this event are still present. For ID you have to say that the Intelligent Designer designed chromosome #2 to appear as if it was a fusion event (something we CAN and do observe) all the way down to the telomeres that are used to mark the ends of chromosomes. There are many genetic pieces of evidence that also support this. Why do we have a broken vitamin C gene, along with other primates, but most other vertebrates don’t? It is because a gene was broken a long time ago and carried on in the primate linage.

I’d say do some research Larry, but you’ve clearly pointed out many times that you don’t need to read anything.

Let me state that you’ve made so many false statements that it is not practical to tackle them all but feel free to pick one and I’ll rip it to shreds like I did with your statement of “Evolution theory cannot be used to make predictions of macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed.”

Macro-evolution can be and is observed in many different ways. Given the definition of “Macro-evolution” being
“evolution that leads to speciation”
and speciation being
“The process whereby a new species arises as a regional variant of a parent population. It usually involves a small population size. They become unable to produce fertile offspring when mating with the parent population, thus preserving whatever adaptations they had acquired in their somewhat different niche .”

We’ve seen this in the lab with Drosophila paulistorum now unable to produce fertile offspring with the parent species.
We’ve seen this in nature via ring species of Salamander Ensatina where the sub species of klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed. (note there are many ring species that show this type of speciation Ensatina is just one of many examples)

Larry either get a clue, which I and almost everyone else here agree will not happen, or shut up, again I and almost everyone else here agree that will not happen either but we can hope.

Comment #69942

Posted by gregonomic on January 11, 2006 1:40 AM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know whether or not we see miracles in our daily lives

Can’t say I’ve ever seen a 600 y.o. man sailing around with a few thousand mating pairs of animals on his ship, Carol. Have you? Did you take pics?

Why do both of your posts turn at the end to profanity and insults?

Oh, Carol, how can one be so thin-skinned and yet so thick-headed?

I don’t see any profanity in my last post - would you care to point it out for me?

Insults and profanity are the last refuge of the defeated atheist.

Did you get that from the Old Testament?

Comment #69943

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 11, 2006 1:42 AM (e)

Your position makes no sense.

In your position you should be a bit more modest about making that claim of others.

You know, and you know that I know that you know, that the Bible is full of God and miracles right from the get go. How many entities do you know that can say “let there be…” and then, presto, “and there was…”? So why are you asking me about chapter 7? Why not just pick on chapter one?

Because chapter 7 is the chapter about which you said this:

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

Remember now?

Given that you had to invoke two ‘miracles’ to explain just that one chapter, this would seem to sink this claim. Using miracles for explanation does violence to the scientific method. Yet you said that part of the OT is consistent with science. I’m rather startled that you can’t see the wild inconsistency here.

What you seem to be saying, underlyingly, is “the OT is completely truthful and consistent with science. The parts that seem impossible? Well, they’re just miracles, not violations of science! Not the same thing at all!”

So do you now abandon this bizarre claim?

Insults and profanity are the last refuge of the defeated atheist.

Spare me. If you can’t handle having it pointed out that your arguments don’t make sense, you shouldn’t come here. Don’t pretend to be so fragile.

And Carol? ‘Person who does not believe in the inerrancy of the Old Testament’ does not equal ‘Athiest’.

Comment #69945

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 1:53 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

No, you cannot slap the word miracle on everything and be done with it. If the Bible would state something that science demonstrates is highly likely to be false (let alone “proves” to be false) you would have a valid and significant point. (See, my approach is falsifiable.) If, for example, the Bible made it clear that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that would conflict with science. Science claims that is false. Slapping the word miracle on this would solve nothing.

But as gregonomic just wrote, human can’t live to 600 years and you…. chose not to respond to that. Does that mean 600 years old human beings are consistent with science? Or is it a miracle?

Comment #69949

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 11, 2006 2:01 AM (e)

But as gregonomic just wrote, human can’t live to 600 years and you…. chose not to respond to that. Does that mean 600 years old human beings are consistent with science? Or is it a miracle?

I tried to pin down Heddle on almost this exact same issue (Methuselah living to be 900) last month, and he evaded the question with great vigor, as well.

Comment #69951

Posted by k.e. on January 11, 2006 2:08 AM (e)

Carol so now you are an authority on ancient floods in mesopotainia as well as biological aging AND decoding myth and 3000 (or more) year old pseudo science.

OK I’ll take you up on it
3 questions
1. Why did Michael Angelo paint rams horns on Moses in the Sistene Chapel what is the significance of them and what other myths use the same symbol.

2. What is the commonality between the Egyptian Book of the Dead stories and the Hebrew world view.

3. Choose either the historical method of imposing world view on neighboring tribes through completely wiping them out or changing the world view to account for multiculturalism OR various second coming myths from say 5000 years ago to 2000 years ago OR the effects of overgrazing by goats and sheep on the forrests in mesopotainia.

Comment #69954

Posted by Red Mann on January 11, 2006 2:16 AM (e)

Carol, precisely how does a theist, such as yourself, defeat an atheist? Do you defeat him/her with overwhelming knowledge of the True Bible. An atheist has no use for the bible, yours or anyone else’s. Do you put the fear of god in someone who does not see the necessity to believe in a god, your god or any other. All of your ruminations about the bible and its relation to science are essentially meaningless. You obviously have a very high opinion of yourself and of the importance of your religious notions. Sorry, I’m not impressed.

Comment #69955

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 2:25 AM (e)

k.e. wrote:

Carol so now you are an authority on ancient floods in mesopotainia as well as biological aging AND decoding myth and 3000 (or more) year old pseudo science.

OK I’ll take you up on it
3 questions

Didn’t Darwin wrote that even if there is no fossil record at all, the evidence for evolution is still overwhelming? And that discussion on fossils evidence only take up 11% of Origin of Species? Bear in mind that was written before the beginning of molecular biology.

In a similar manner, even if the bible is completely consistent with science, the evidence against its divinity is still overwhelming. The multiple fronts that bible has to fight today - scientific, historic, morality - I’ll never understand why anyone would take it seriously.

Comment #69964

Posted by limpidense on January 11, 2006 3:08 AM (e)

In the case of biblical literalists, the answer to Eugene’s question would likely be: because they are cowards clinging to ignorance in a tight, dark (but warm!) crevice.

If a device like Zaphod’s (HHG2tU) glasses (what were they named, again?) could be devised to work against possible moral, ethical, psychological threats the owner of the patent would make zillions.

Comment #69972

Posted by Popper's ghost on January 11, 2006 4:03 AM (e)

I don’t see any profanity in my last post - would you care to point it out for me?

On this, unlike much else, she is technically correct:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=frigging
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=profane

Comment #69975

Posted by Popper's ghost on January 11, 2006 4:08 AM (e)

P.S. If you don’t suffer from Carol’s exaggerated sensitivity, you might enjoy the “Minced oath” entry at Wikipedia.

Comment #69984

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 6:28 AM (e)

Comment #69933 posted by Wayne Francis on January 11, 2006 01:03 AM
Larry how about this prediction from way over 100 years ago.
Prediction - humans have a common ancestor with other great apes.
This was made before we knew about chromosomes and DNA.

You are still dealing here with how evolution theory is used just to make predictions of more circumstantial evidence of macro-evolution. A prediction of macro-evolution per se cannot be made because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed.

I’d say do some research Larry, but you’ve clearly pointed out many times that you don’t need to read anything.

Why is it that whenever people here present an unknown or obscure counter-argument to my statements, they always blame me for failure to have researched that counter-argument ? I don’ t think that is reasonable. Can’t you people ever introduce a counter-argument without accusing your adversary of stupidity, ignorance, laziness, etc.? I can do it – why can’t you ?

Macro-evolution can be and is observed in many different ways. Given the definition of “Macro-evolution” being “evolution that leads to speciation”

Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition.

Larry either get a clue, which I and almost everyone else here agree will not happen, or shut up, again I and almost everyone else here agree that will not happen either but we can hope.

I have never told another commenter here to shut up – not even those commenters who falsely told me that they knew for sure that the Dover defendants never tried to assert privilege for a particular attorney-client message. You should learn how to debate people without putting them down.

Comment #69986

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 7:29 AM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

As far as “kinds” are concerned, you don’t expect the Bible to take on the role of a science primer.

Ah! but some people do Carol - kind of what all the fuss is all about isn’t it?

Larry the laughing stock wrote:

Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed.

Because ‘sometimes’ a weird thought comes into your head doesn’t mean that stands up as anyone’s definition than yours old chap.

Larry - as far as I know no-one on this forum has ever ‘directly observed’ you (unless someone tells me they’ve visited a public library and spotted a sad fellow playing musical chairs in the computer section).

How can we tell you exist since we can’t see you?

Comment #69987

Posted by David Heddle on January 11, 2006 7:39 AM (e)

Arden,

But why do you bother ‘proving’ the scientific accuracy of the OT when you can simply take anything that’s scientifically impossible and slap a big ‘MIRACLE’ label on it? It renders all the rest of the ‘scientific’ explanations completely vacuous.

No, it only demonstrates that, apparently, you cannot handle multifaceted concepts. Most people who engage in this debate (the scientific accuracy of the bible) understand that miracles are exempt from the discussion. Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine—because it wasn’t a parlor trick but a miracle—which by definition is supernatural—i.e., it defies scientific explanation.

Most educated people in this debate will also avoid the argument that you just made, “no fair, you can call anything a miracle!” because they understand that (a) it is too trivial of a point to make on a public forum under their own name and, more importantly, (b) that the bulk of the biblical text does not describe the miraculous and so provides ample, fertile ground that can be examined for scientific error.

For example, if Genesis read, “God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe” it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry “miracle” to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science’s discovery by several millennia.

It is amazing how “little” you all care about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent with science.

Comment #69989

Posted by Renier on January 11, 2006 7:41 AM (e)

Larry wrote: Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition.

So, you have to replace the definition with your own in order to attack it? I hear a straw man calling you…

Wayne gave you some good samples:

We’ve seen this in the lab with Drosophila paulistorum now unable to produce fertile offspring with the parent species.
We’ve seen this in nature via ring species of Salamander Ensatina where the sub species of klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed. (note there are many ring species that show this type of speciation Ensatina is just one of many examples)

Here we have samples, where one species splits up into 2 different species (old and new). They can no longer produce offspring since the DNA differences has become too great. This all have been observed. So WTF is your problem? Are you going to tell me Macro-Evolution can only be when a bacteria grows arms and legs?

Wayne went out of his way to try and give you the information that you required. You ignored the facts presented to you, so you wasted his time, and everybody else’s. If you are honest in seeking knowledge, then you have a very poor way of showing it. Go over to the TalkOrigins.org site and READ before spouting further stupidity like a parrot. You appear to be nothing but a creationist parrot. Start thinking for yourself man! What have you got to loose? Trust me, it won’t be respect you are loosing…

Comment #70002

Posted by Red Mann on January 11, 2006 8:37 AM (e)

Heddle:
It is amazing how “little” you all care about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent with science

Actually, I don’t think that “we” care much at all about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent, or consistent, with science, it is you and, of course, Carol, who keep insisting that it is consistent with science. You’re making the claim, so prove it, scientifically of course.

Comment #70004

Posted by Tim Hague on January 11, 2006 8:45 AM (e)

Larry Farfarman

As I suggested to you way back here you do need to do some background reading, both on ID and on evolution. Not only would it help your arguments, I think you might also find it interesting.

If you insist on posting from a position of almost complete ignorance you will continue to be flamed as a troll or a windup merchant.

Comment #70005

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 11, 2006 8:49 AM (e)

David,

“For example, if Genesis read, “God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe” it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry “miracle” to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science’s discovery by several millennia.”

And one might add to your comment that the ancient philosophers also strongly supported the concept of an eternal universe. Aristotle, for example, spoke of the “antiquity of the universe”, by which he meant that it was eternal. The Bible’s reference to a beginning thus was made in opposition to contemporary established thinking. Yet it remarkably turned out to be right on target. The big bang we know today is a singular event, never to be repeated again for this universe, thus representing a true beginning.

Comment #70006

Posted by Tim Hague on January 11, 2006 8:50 AM (e)

David Heddle

I think it’s totally irrelevent if the bible (or any other collection of fairy tales) is consistent with science. How often do I refer to the bible during my scientific pursuits? Once a day? No. Once a month? No. Once a year? No. Have I ever? No.

Comment #70008

Posted by Wayne Francis on January 11, 2006 8:55 AM (e)

Carrol care to give me your translation of Joshua 10:12-14?

Seems to me that stopping the orbit of the Earth around the sun, to stop the sun in the sky, would have profound effects. I would expect the event to be recorded by other civilizations. I mean unless you really do think that the Earth was flat back then. Even then why don’t we see this story in Asia? Hmmm maybe God put the rest of the world to sleep for a day or just froze time all together in areas outside his preferred people land. How about this Carrol. Australian aboriginal rock art dates back 40,000 years and there are other sites in India and South Africa older then that. Please tell us how Adam and Eve fit in scientifically as the first man and woman when humans predated them by a few hundred thousand years.

Comment # 69984

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Comment #69984
Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 06:28 AM

Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition….

Gee Scientist have been so stupid for not following your definition
Macro-evolution is something that has never been observed and you say it can’t happen because its never been observed. So you are complaining about something that can’t be observed by your definition. Once something is observed you just move the goal post further out and say “Yea but that no longer fits my definition”

Comment # 69984

Larry Fafarman wrote:

…You should learn how to debate people without putting them down.

Larry this isn’t a debate. You made a false statement, yet again. I was just fed up with your false statements and jumped on the band wagon and easily refuted your ignorant false statement. I don’t see why I should give you any slack when you are willfully ignorant at best and straight up dishonest at worst.

Comment #70009

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 8:59 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

Yet it remarkably turned out to be right on target.

.. if you can call being out by 10 billion years or so ‘right on target’.

Comment #70013

Posted by jim on January 11, 2006 9:10 AM (e)

limpidense wrote:

If a device like Zaphod’s (HHG2tU) glasses (what were they named, again?)

Peril sensitive sunglasses

They get dark when danger gets near. It’s to help you remain cool and calm in even the most stressful situations.

Comment #70014

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 9:11 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

“For example, if Genesis read, “God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe” it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry “miracle” to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science’s discovery by several millennia.”

‘Fortunately’- true Carol - but it was only a 50:50 shot -either the Universe had a beginning or it didn’t.

‘Unfortunately’ Genesis gets all of the other facts of life wrong - only to be expected given the information that the guys that wrote it had at the time.

Comment #70021

Posted by jim on January 11, 2006 9:28 AM (e)

Regarding the subject of Larry…

My personal opinion is that he’s performing his own experiments on us.

You see he makes totally outlandish and clearly false statements. He asks for evidence or information on things but when he gets that information he doesn’t just ignore it, he flaunts the fact that he hasn’t followed up.

IMO, he in now way supports ID. He’s just baiting us for his own amusement. I have stopped responding to his posts. The more outragious and clearly false statements he makes, the more I’m convinced that he is literally just “trolling”.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he does the same thing on other web sites (e.g. his meteor stuff probably falls into this category). He has probably tried the same tactic on the creationist sites but they banned him quickly.

Comment #70024

Posted by David Heddle on January 11, 2006 9:47 AM (e)

Dean Morrison,

Actually I used the word “fortunately”, not Carol. It was used ironically.

Carol,

I have a question of Hebrew usage at the end of this post. If you get a chance, your input would be appreciated.

Tim,

Nor do I refer to the bible for my scientific pursuits. It is not a science textbook. It is comforting, though, that what it does say about science is reliable.

Comment #70026

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 9:48 AM (e)

Comment #70006

Posted by Tim Hague on January 11, 2006 08:50 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle

I think it’s totally irrelevent if the bible (or any other collection of fairy tales) is consistent with science. How often do I refer to the bible during my scientific pursuits? Once a day? No. Once a month? No. Once a year? No. Have I ever? No.

Well Tim, that’s your loss. According to Dave, the bible says that the Cosmological Constant is a very small nonzero number. Where did Dave locate that? Well, the bible mentions stars, he says, and stars are only possible with a CC being a very small nonzero number, so QED.

Spotting the huge flaw in that will be left to the interested reader.

Comment #70028

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 11, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

Ms. Clouser:

1) The “Bible” is not the Torah. You - who claim to be a scholar - should refrain from engaging in this wilful equivocation.

2) The Torah is also a haphazard collection of writings, by many different authors (by the way, any idea about how Moses might have written a book about events following his own departure from this world? Was that a mistranslation too?), who wrote at different times. You know this as well as I do, or, as a self-proclaimed scholar, you should.

3) Genesis recounts an origins myth (or two). The Song of Solomon is a poem (and a highly erotically-charged one, at that; but don’t tell this to a fundy, or he’ll get his pants in a knot). Numbers is a combination census - organization chart - mission statement. Kings 1 and 2 are a heavily edited story of the semimythical kings of the Jews (and “revisionist” - i.e. evidence-based and not ideologically-driven - archaeology has something to say about those guys). And on and on. Hardly a coherent whole, unless you have a very quirky definition of coherence.

4) Alas, you do share Mr. Heddle’s taste for semantic trickstery. Now, “the Bible” that is not the Bible is completely compatible with science… mod miracles!
Sorry, this is too ridiculous. As I already told your ally-of-convenience, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is compatible with science, if we only suspend our disbelief long enough to disregard supernatural occurrences!

In short, Ms. Clouser, try again. Your arguments, up to now, have been woefully inadequate.

Comment #70031

Posted by David Heddle on January 11, 2006 9:57 AM (e)

Steve s,

I meant it tongue-in-cheek, but of course there is some substance—after all Weinberg used nothing more than our existence (or the existence of stars) to make a bold prediction about the value of the CC.

Although I was tongue-in-cheek, other much more impressive scientists than I say very similar things. For example, we have Nobel Laureate (for cosmic background radiation discovery) Penzias stating: “The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Comment #70035

Posted by Ogee on January 11, 2006 10:10 AM (e)

Heddle wrote:

Nor do I refer to the bible for my scientific pursuits. It is not a science textbook. It is comforting, though, that what it does say about science is reliable.

Well, sure, if you are deluded enough to consider the following (from just the first few verses) “reliable”:

- plant life precedes the Sun, Moon and stars
- the Earth (and its seas) predates the Sun

Comment #70037

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 11, 2006 10:16 AM (e)

David,

Ken Ham is wrong on a few counts. YOM is used as era even with ordinal numbers (Hosea), Genesis speaks of “one YOM” not “the first YOM”, so it’s not ordinal, the much more frequent use of YOM as day (daylight) and as 24-hour period, as opposed to era, is merely based on need, and there is no other Hebrew word for era that is nearly as precise as YOM.

Hope this helps.

Comment #70040

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

Perhaps if you weren’t so willing to make cosmological non sequitur arguments for god, I would have known you were being tongue in cheek that particular time. But you are, so I didn’t.

Comment #70042

Posted by David Heddle on January 11, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

Carol,

Thank you.

Oh, in addition to PTers caring (a great deal) about claims that the bible is consistent with science, many will not be happy that you (and I) disagree with Ken Ham. They prefer to paint with a very broad “creationist/fundamentalist” brush.

Comment #70047

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 11, 2006 10:35 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #70048

Posted by Ogee on January 11, 2006 10:36 AM (e)

I would venture that PTers care far less about the Bible’s scientific inaccuracies than Heddle and Clouser do about PTers’ opinion of the Bible.

Comment #70052

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 11, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Mr. Heddle:

I, for one, care as much about people making false claims about the Bible as I care about people making false claims about anything else, simply because I care about being lied to.

As to the broad brush, the fact that Ms. Clouser and you disagree with Mr. Ham’s conclusions in no way detracts from the fact that you share his modus operandi: some beliefs come first, then comes backwards reasoning to find “support” for those “conclusions”. In that, there’s no real difference among creationists/fundamentalists, be they YEC, OEC, Muslims, Jews, or what have you.

Comment #70062

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 11:16 AM (e)

Comment #70048

Posted by Ogee on January 11, 2006 10:36 AM (e) (s)

I would venture that PTers care far less about the Bible’s scientific inaccuracies than Heddle and Clouser do about PTers’ opinion of the Bible.

Indeed, please to note: Heddle comes over here to talk to us, we are not having this discussion on his blog.

Comment #70069

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 11, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

Answering Carol’s mail? Mighty gallant of you.

No, it only demonstrates that, apparently, you cannot handle multifaceted concepts.

You mean I’d rather not hold simultaneously contradictory ideas in my head at the same time. You say that like it’s a bad thing!

Most people who engage in this debate (the scientific accuracy of the bible) understand that miracles are exempt from the discussion.

Since you can’t explain them. I know, you get to leave out the awkward stuff. That’s handy.

My point is that Christians have no right to go on about the scientific accuracy of the Bible – at all – when you have to resort to miracles to explain so much. And Christians do make those claims.

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine—because it wasn’t a parlor trick but a miracle—

Or, more plausibly, it simply never happened.

which by definition is supernatural—i.e., it defies scientific explanation.

This is not terribly original, David.

Most educated people in this debate will also avoid the argument that you just made,

No, David, you just wish other people wouldn’t mention these things. It’s not the same thing.

“no fair, you can call anything a miracle!” because they understand that (a) it is too trivial of a point to make on a public forum under their own name and, more importantly, (b) that the bulk of the biblical text does not describe the miraculous and so provides ample, fertile ground that can be examined for scientific error.

Provided you leave out all the stuff that is miracles! So, once you filter out the miracles, the Bible is 100% scientifically accurate! It’s like a scientific experiment where you’re allowed to throw out any data that contradicts your theory.

For example, if Genesis read, “God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe” it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry “miracle” to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science’s discovery by several millennia.

So the Bible predicted the Universe began! Well, once again, I have to say I’m impressed.

It is amazing how “little” you all care about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent with science.

No, David, for the hundredth time, it is people like YOU and CAROL who are obsessed with proving the accuracy of the Bible. The rest of us realize that the Bible is irrelevant to science, loaded with mythological material that simply couldn’t have happened, and, more to the point, no more authoritative than whatever the Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Moslems, or Hopis say about the origin of the Universe. We only ‘care about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent with science’ when people like you and Carol make nonsensical claims about how nothing in the bible is scientifically impossible, or warp science to attempt to support the literal truth of the Bible.

Comment #70070

Posted by gregonomic on January 11, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

…many will not be happy that you (and I) disagree with Ken Ham.

Au contraire. It makes some of us very happy. It is a symptom of a deeper division, one which is more than apparent from your mutual reluctance to answer Lenny’s questions.

It is clear that you cannot agree on the issue about which you care most deeply: which one of you is going to “heaven”, and which isn’t.

Although you’re both certain you’re the chosen one, we know that at least one of you isn’t.

PTers, on the other hand, are united about the one thing we care most deeply about (at least while we’re here): defending science and science education against threats from fundies like you.

Comment #70075

Posted by AC on January 11, 2006 11:49 AM (e)

Eugene Lai wrote:

The multiple fronts that bible has to fight today - scientific, historic, morality - I’ll never understand why anyone would take it seriously.

Fear, and the defense of ego in its name.

David Heddle wrote:

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine…

…because it didn’t happen. He also didn’t die and then come back to life 3 days later. If believers didn’t insist that believing these facts has consequences (a self-fulfilling prophecy), they would be utterly inconsequential. The bible would be recognized as a collection of ancient myths, no different from those of any other primitive society, and we’d all proceed with our lives in other ways.

Thanks for “multifaceted concepts” though. That was most amusing.

Carol wrote:

Aristotle, for example, spoke of the “antiquity of the universe”, by which he meant that it was eternal. The Bible’s reference to a beginning thus was made in opposition to contemporary established thinking.

What a thorough review of ancient beliefs regarding the nature of time, the universe, and creation!

Yet it remarkably turned out to be right on target.

Hey Carol, I just had one of my colleagues flip a coin, without telling me the result. Then I flipped a coin, and it came up the same as his did. Remarkable!

Comment #70080

Posted by Carol clouser on January 11, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

Wayne Francis,

Nowhere does the Bible state or even imply that Adam was the first human. The Hebrew AUDUM can mean one of three things: (1) humanity, (2) the human male, and (3) the name of an individual. In Genesis the meaning of the word shifts as the story progresses. Most translations get it wrong in many instances. For a complete and thorough analysis you will need to read up on it. I can recommend some good books if you are interested.

Regarding Jushua, your questions have been addressed long ago. Again, read up on it.

Comment #70084

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 12:18 PM (e)

Comment #69989 posted by Renier on January 11, 2006 07:41 AM

Larry wrote: Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition.

So, you have to replace the definition with your own in order to attack it?

That is not just my own definition – it is also one of the definitions given in the article on macro-evolution in the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia.

Wayne gave you some good samples:

We’ve seen this in the lab with Drosophila paulistorum now unable to produce fertile offspring with the parent species.
We’ve seen this in nature via ring species of Salamander Ensatina where the sub species of klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed.

To me, this is just micro-evolution — the new species are still just fruitflies and salamanders, even if they cannot interbreed with the parent species. When I talk about macro-evolution, I am talking about something like the evolution of a lizard into a bird. There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions, and the idea is counter-intuitive.

There is a lot of controversy over the relation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The following webpage discusses this issue much more extensively than I can here —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macroevolution

I also recommend –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution

Comment #70085

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 11, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions, and the idea is counter-intuitive.

The first half of this sentence is a lie. The second half, what you find ‘intuitive’, is irrelevant.

Try harder, Larry. Or better yet, go away.

Comment #70090

Posted by jim on January 11, 2006 12:36 PM (e)

Larry,

The genetic difference between two species of fruit flies is similar to the genetic difference between two species of great apes (e.g. humans and chimpanzees).

Is the difference between humans & chimpanzees significant or should we just consider chimpanzees the same as humans? If you believe the former, then we *have* witnessed “macro-evolution”. If you believe the later, you should make it your personal crusade to free all of those “humans” unfairly detained in zoos.

Comment #70091

Posted by Ubernatural on January 11, 2006 12:36 PM (e)

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine—because it wasn’t a parlor trick but a miracle—

Or, more plausibly, it simply never happened.

I can think of three possible explanations for a “miraculous event”

1) The event happened as claimed, it’s a miracle, God did it.

2) The event happened but it has a natural, scientific explanation, it’s not a miracle.

3) The event never happened at all.

What evidence do we have that Noah lived to be 600 years old? Do we have anything else to go by other than what ‘the Bible’ tells us? If that’s our only source of data, what else does the bible tell us about Noah to help convince a skeptic like me that this is a legitimate miracle and not something that was made up that undermines the credibility of the tome?

Here’s what I want to know about what the bible tells us regarding 600 y.o. Noah: Did Noah’s wife also live to be 600? If I am correct that Noah only had three sons, why did he not have many more children, given the amount of time that he had? Was it common for everyone to live that long yet still have roughly the same number of children that modern families have in 1/10th the amount of time?

Comment #70093

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

Larry the laughingstock wrote:

That is not just my own definition — it is also one of the definitions given in the article on macro-evolution in the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia.

.. well, off to Wikipedia to find this:

The term macroevolution refers to the emergence of new species and higher taxa through evolution, which, according to some cannot be explained using the gradual changes inherent in evolution. It is often used in the creation evolution controversy to refer to the part of evolution that cannot be directly observed, and contradicts scripture. The term ‘species’ has atleast six conflicting definitions making speciation difficult to define.

The ‘Wikipedia’ entry has a big warning notice to say it’s disputed (suprise, suprise!)

.. no mention of your definition there Larry.

Are you on a one man crusade to destroy your own credibility? - this is quite surreal. If your fashion sense is as bad as your judgement that nice lady at the library would have to be desperate. I mean - different coloured socks and shoes on the wrong feet???

Comment #70095

Posted by Russell on January 11, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

Oh, in addition to PTers caring (a great deal) about claims that the bible is consistent with science, many will not be happy that you (and I) disagree with Ken Ham. They prefer to paint with a very broad “creationist/fundamentalist” brush.

I respond http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43c4f6c555ef1cd7;act=ST;f=14;t=128" rel="external nofollow">here rather than further divert this thread.

Comment #70098

Posted by Russell on January 11, 2006 12:46 PM (e)

[dang! I was sure I previewed that]

I respond here rather than further divert this thread.

Comment #70101

Posted by Grey Wolf on January 11, 2006 12:54 PM (e)

Larry said: “There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions”

Amuse me, Larry, please, with your explanation of all the intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds. Are they hoaxes, maybe? How else could a half-bird half-dinosaur have left his bones and feathers imprinted in rock?

Please explain all the fossils - don’t just stop at the most famous ones.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #70112

Posted by Jim Harrison on January 11, 2006 1:18 PM (e)

Many ancient peoples claimed that their early kings lived for hundreds of years. Jewish legends about 900-year old patriarchs are no different–or more credible–than the parallel Egyptian or Sumerian or Hindu stories.

Comment #70114

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 1:32 PM (e)

Just popped the Panda’s Thumb thread about Steve Steve looking at the new evidence that challenges the idea of a ‘Cambrian explosion’ onto Wikipedia.
Not an option open to Carol, Larry or Heddle unless they discover a new book of the ‘Bible’ (and providing they all agree on that of course….)

Comment #70121

Posted by AC on January 11, 2006 1:54 PM (e)

Ubernatural wrote:

2) The event happened but it has a natural, scientific explanation, it’s not a miracle.

And within that, there are two angles:

2a) A deliberate illusion was involved; i.e. stage magic.

2b) People were mistaken about what they saw.

I’ve found the whole #2 proposal more threatening to most believers than #3.

Though, for fun, consider the possibility for David Copperfield to become the next Jesus. He made buildings disappear for your sins, ingrate!

Was it common for everyone to live that long yet still have roughly the same number of children that modern families have in 1/10th the amount of time?

Unless they discovered the fountain of youth while cruising around in the ark, I’d say a point came when neither of them wanted to have sex with each other.

And it came long before 600. ;)

Comment #70129

Posted by Ubernatural on January 11, 2006 2:31 PM (e)

Ok, so if Noah and his wife only had 3 sons before their bodies started to fall apart, how much more time goes by before he gets up the gumption to build an ark? 400 years? I wonder what kind of shape he was in at that point, or his sons for that matter. I assume they would have been quite old too?

Comment #70148

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 3:15 PM (e)

Was it common for everyone to live that long yet still have roughly the same number of children that modern families have in 1/10th the amount of time?

My theory: Noah is an elf.

Comment #70161

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 03:15 PM (e) (s)


My theory: Noah is an elf.

LOL. Good one! One quible, surely it should be “was an elf”. Either that or he is much older than 600 years.

Comment #70162

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

hey! congrats. this makes two threads now that Larry has managed to entertain us all for so long that they have run over 400 posts.

quite an accomplishment.

I can’t recall even JAD in his heyday accomplishing that feat.

beer bongs all around!

Comment #70164

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

One quible, surely it should be “was an elf”. Either that or he is much older than 600 years.

My apology. My english failed me yet again.

Comment #70166

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 3:59 PM (e)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 03:53 PM (e) (s)

hey! congrats. this makes two threads now that Larry has managed to entertain us all for so long that they have run over 400 posts.

quite an accomplishment.

I can’t recall even JAD in his heyday accomplishing that feat.

beer bongs all around!

Hehe.
What do reckon on Larry’s chances of taking JAD’s crown, as crank of the year?

Comment #70172

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 4:11 PM (e)

so… it appears while i suspected it right along (as did anybody who has read her posts for a reasonable period), the reason Carol thinks metaphysics and philosophy should be taught as science is that, well, she thinks they ARE.

correct me if I’m wrong, but shes says:

1. that the correct and literal interpretation of genesis is not incompatible with science.

2. from the correct and literal interpretation of time as written in that account, one can only conclude that several protagonists in the genesis account MUST have been hundreds of years old.

3. The age of these protagonists can only be defined as miraculous.

4….but miracles don’t conflict with science.

Am i missing something here? Seems this argument can now be put to bed.

Carol thinks miracles should be included in the purview of science. This does not conflict with earlier statements she has made.

However, I hope it is now clear to EVERYONE that her definition of the scope of science and the ACTUAL accepted scope of science are two quite different things.

I see no point in arguing semantics with Carol. She has made her position quite clear, as far as I can tell.

Nobody here, or anywhere else, will ever be able to convince her that her definition of the purview of science is incorrect, or even untennable.

Can we move on to Heddle now?

Heddle is not nearly as clear.

so, we could ask him directly:

Heddle:

“Do you think science should Carol’s definition and examples of miracles within its purview?”

If not, then we are in agreement that in fact, no matter what accepted transliteration you use, the OT is NOT in agreement with the current accepted definition and purview of science.

If you, like Carol, believe the current accepted purview of science is too narrow, clearly state so.

that way, all can see how little point there is in arguing with you, just like we can clearly see with Carol.

Comment #70175

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

What do reckon on Larry’s chances of taking JAD’s crown, as crank of the year?

not a chance in hedoublehockeysticks :p

have you ever read JAD’s manifesto?

it still ranks as “crankiest” on crank.net, even years after it was submitted.

it will take quite a serious coherent (incoherent?) effort to surpass that.

naw, Larry is a textbook troll. you can even lookup the definition of troll on the web if you doubt it.

Comment #70178

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

hmm, that was interesting…

question to Heddle should read:

“Do you think science should accept Carol’s definition and include examples of miracles within its purview?

Comment #70247

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

Sir Toejam

Larry is a textbook troll. you can even lookup the definition of troll on the web if you doubt it.

‘Google’ his name and you will find that there is someone called Larry Fafarman, who’s main gripes are about confederate flags and such like. Anyway he rides a bike and lives in Los Angeles. I’d give you his e-mail but that really would be bad form.

That is you Larry isn’t it? Perhaps you need a ‘name scrambler’ so that Google can’t make this awful invasion of your privacy - or a ‘brain scrambler’ so that no-one can recognise what you say?

Oh, I see … you’ve already got one of those…

Comment #70249

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

I thought Larry’s real name was Larry Farma?

will the real Larry please stand up?

Comment #70254

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

What this Larry Farma?

http://www2.ljworld.com/users/LarryFarma/comments/

- same e-mail address and loopy opinions anyway -

Do I get a point for ‘spot the Larry’ or is it yours STJ?

Comment #70256

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 7:16 PM (e)

Well, i wasn’t the first to dig up the “Farma” alias, so i can’t take credit for that.

feel free to give yourself a ‘spot the larry point’ just for digging up the confederate flag reference, tho i think someone might have beaten you to that as well.

heck, ‘spot the larry’ points for everybody!

I’ll even give larry a point if he tells us whether one or both of these are aliases. he doesn’t even have to give us his real name (if he has one).

Comment #70262

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 7:23 PM (e)

I’ll claim the bike thing though - maybe he can make a tandem and take that nice lady from the library for a ride?

You know - as a cyclist - he does at least have one redeeming feature - way to go Larry!!

Comment #70265

Posted by ben on January 11, 2006 7:28 PM (e)

Nothing Larry ever says here can beat his meteor shower comment for sheer inanity.

Although his Holocaust revisionism

I believe that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way(s) to identify Jews and non-Jews.

is also crunchy and delicious.

Comment #70270

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

otoh, having seen the way larry thinks, it seems entirely plausible that larry might be incapable of learning how to drive.

ya know, when i first started trying to catch up this morning, I found that with all the drivel from larry, heddle, and carol stinking up the site, the most interesting conversation took the form of the islander (*wink*)discussion of which is the best ale in the UK, and where to best settle that debate in the square.

got my thirst for uh, ‘knowledge’ up, that’s for sure.

got me seriously thinking about buying a plane ticket just to analyze the ale theories being presented.

the US, as you are well aware, because of laws pertaining to the percentage of alcohol present in order to be called ‘beer’, or ‘ale’ instead of say, ‘malt liquor’ makes for testing theories on good ale to be difficult at best.

Unless one has a microbrewery nearby, the studious pursuit of fine ale mostly dies out.

anyway, I guess what I’m saying is that I wish the US would get its priorities straight, give up on all the political wrangling over education, and solve this horrid ale issue before it’s too late!

Comment #70272

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 11, 2006 7:38 PM (e)

Just google on ‘Fafarman’ and ‘Confederate’ and see how many hits come up.

It seems to be quite an obsession of Larry’s. And always in the same, uh, direction.

Comment #70278

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Sir Toejam,

us ‘islanders’ have got a session lined up for ‘Darwin day’. -Beers in Trafalgar square then off to see a lecture by Dawkins…
followed by more beer..
you are of course - most welcome ;P

- it looks like Prof Steve Steve may be joining us. We have a theory that our beer is so good that abiogenesis would occur in a pint of it in a matter of hours - if only it ever lasted that long….. that we will be demonstrating to him - photos to follow hopefully :)

Comment #70283

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 7:53 PM (e)

you are of course - most welcome ;P

curses and much gnashing of teeth…

uh, you wouldn’t be willing to front me a plane ticket would ya?

surely you’d rather do that than hear me put forth the theory that Coors is simply the best beer, ever, right?

*sigh*

Comment #70286

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

…or at least save me an empy barstool so i can pretend I’m there.

Comment #70294

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

LOL Jim I love that.

Any alternative explanations as to what REALLY
causes meteor showers ?

Larry Fafarman

Hi Larry,
We really don’t need another explanation since we already have the correct one….
Pete Bias

I also love how Larry explains that if a meteor is lasts one second, and has a path of 7 miles, that means it’s going 7 miles/second.

Comment #70295

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

.. will do Sir Toejam… we’ll even stick a pint in front of it to see if can rustle up some abiogenesis.

Comment #70301

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 8:20 PM (e)

hold now… pint of what exactly. I’m pretty picky about my primordial soups.

Comment #70302

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 8:22 PM (e)

I’m more of a scotch ale fan than bitters. I’d appreciate a lean in that direction.

Comment #70307

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 8:31 PM (e)

Hey Carol, why should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions?

Hey Heddle, same question?

Oh, and hey Heddle, why is Carol wrong when she says the New Testament is full of crap?

Hey Carol, why is Heddle wrong when he says the New Testament is the Word of God?

Hey both of you, why won’t either of you answer my simple questions?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Comment #70315

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine

Pfffft – I can do that too.

All I need are a bucket, some grapes, a few pounds of sugar, and a couple weeks.

Only an effeminate wimp would bother with wine, though. Any REAL man would have made beer instead.

;)

Comment #70320

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 8:52 PM (e)

Any real god would have it bursting out of a volcano!

.. fond of the malty old 80 shillings myself STJ - but we’re in London for Crisakes (near kent - real hop country) - the best we’ll probably get is a can of McEwans…

Comment #70323

Posted by Randy on January 11, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

Moses wrote:

Which god of the Canaanites would that be?… And when you start getting all hostile in your certainty… It rubs the wrong way…

Thank you, Moses. Your comment settled all my fur back down the right way ;-)
Still, I have to say to Carol that we all know the Bible is older that the writings we have. I’ll even assume, for the sake of argument, that when delivered for the very first time to human beings, the words were literally true, albeit incomprehensible in most details, in every respect. From that moment forward, however, it has been in the hands of, the work of, the domain of, human beings. When you start telling me what the “original” Bible says, I want to know your source. AFAIK, there is a fragment of Numbers from about the third centruy BCE and the Dead Sea Scrolls from the second century BCE. At best, that leaves about 1K years (and likely longer for Genesis) for simple human error, laziness, or outright mucking about. Any resort to Devine inspiration or revered ritual to ensure accuracy is nothing but special pleading.
To paraphrase a line from your buddy David Heddle,
I’m from Misery, show me.
Randy
P.S.
Moses, have you heard the one about the time Moses was walking through the airport where George Bush was about to take off?

Comment #70325

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 11, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

Whatever it was that George Bush was about to take off in that airport, I don’t want to hear anymore about it, at all.

Comment #70326

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 9:10 PM (e)

Any others that want to join the British Panda’s Thumb chapter?

The ‘Silver Cross’, Trafalgar Square 4.30 Mon 13th Feb - then off to UCL for the British Humanist talk for Darwin Day hosted by Richard Dawkins - 6.30 at UCL near Euston.

All welcome..

Look for Prof Steve Steve and the empty barstool with Sir Toejam’s pint in front of it….

Comment #70329

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 9:22 PM (e)

Any real god would have it bursting out of a volcano!

Or flowing in rivers. ;)

I once had a couple Jehovah’s Witnesses approach me in a parking lot and ask me if I were going to Heaven. I asked, “If I go to Heaven, will I be able to drink beer and f*** virgins?”

“Nooooo!” they gasped, shocked.

“Well, then why the hell would I want to GO there?”, I concluded, and walked away.

Comment #70332

Posted by geoffrobinson on January 11, 2006 9:27 PM (e)

Yeah really. Call me when you get Corona and some dirty girls.

Comment #70337

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Comment #70101
Posted by Grey Wolf on January 11, 2006 12:54 PM

Larry said: “There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions”

Amuse me, Larry, please, with your explanation of all the intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds. Are they hoaxes, maybe? How else could a half-bird half-dinosaur have left his bones and feathers imprinted in rock?

Yes, I know that the archaeopteryx is supposed to be the “missing link” between reptiles and birds. But I don’t believe that evolution from reptile to archaeopteryx and from archaeopteryx to bird occurred in single bounds; there must have been many intermediate “missing links” in between those stages. I cannot imagine what those other “missing links” might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

Comment #70341

Posted by geoffrobinson on January 11, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

Sure. And and my granddad died before he could have any kids.

Comment #70344

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

Now you have TWO gaps! BAM! Larry’s absolutely brillant! Genius!

Comment #70347

Posted by ben on January 11, 2006 10:03 PM (e)

Yes, I know that the archaeopteryx is supposed to be the “missing link” between reptiles and birds. But I don’t believe that evolution from reptile to archaeopteryx and from archaeopteryx to bird occurred in single bounds; there must have been many intermediate “missing links” in between those stages. I cannot imagine what those other “missing links” might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

Larry’s scientific analysis : “don’t believe,” “must have been,” “cannot imagine,” “must not have been.” It’s not about the fossil record, it’s about Larry’s preconceived notions.

Comment #70352

Posted by jim on January 11, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

'Rev Dr.' Lenny Flank wrote:

Only an effeminate wimp would bother with wine, though. Any REAL man would have made beer instead.

Hah! You poser. I make & drink mead, the nectar of the God(s)! Well, some of mine is anyway. The rest is really quite yucky (but still drinkable).

Comment #70363

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 10:32 PM (e)

Hah! You poser. I make & drink mead, the nectar of the God(s)! Well, some of mine is anyway. The rest is really quite yucky (but still drinkable).

Back when I was in high school, one of my friends had a dad who kept beehives, so we always got as much free honey as we wanted. And, being the relatively bright D&Ders that we were, we used it to brew mead. Our process was awfully crude —- we just got a plastic garbage can, filled it with water, stirred in a few pounds of honey (our method of determing how much was enough consisted of pouring continuously until somebody said “I think that’s probably enough”), dropping a cake of baker’s yeast on top, covering it with a cloth so the bugs wouldn’t fall in and drown, then hiding it in the corner of someone’s basement for two or three weeks until the bubbles stopped appearing. Aging? Bah – only wimps age their mead. ;)

It tasted horribly awful – but then, after the first glass or two, it didn’t matter anyway. :)

Comment #70366

Posted by KiwiInOz on January 11, 2006 10:41 PM (e)

Larry, IIRC archaeopteryx is not touted as a geneological link between reptiles and birds, i.e. birds did not come from reptiles via archaeopteryx, rather it is an offshoot along the way, albeit still related, and a prime example of macroevolution.

Have a look at the 29+ evidences for macroevolution on Talk Origins for a list of genera that demonstrate multiple macroevolutionary changes between reptiles and birds.

Comment #70367

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

Comment #70093 posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 12:39 PM

The ‘Wikipedia’ entry has a big warning notice to say it’s disputed

.. no mention of your definition there Larry.

Yes, my definition is there – here it is –

“It is often used in the creation evolution controversy to refer to the part of evolution that cannot be directly observed, ……. “

Comment #70373

Posted by jim on January 11, 2006 10:53 PM (e)

Lenny,

I made a batch of mead that I imagine tasted like that. It was 18%-21% alcohol and I called it my “cheap date” mead. Aweful tasting but quite “effective”.

I’ve also made some that looked & tasted like a very fine (but much higher in alcohol) champaign.

Comment #70375

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

“It is often used in the creation evolution controversy to refer to the part of evolution that cannot be directly observed, …….

aka strawman. Go right ahead to punch holes to your creationists’ macro-evolution theory.

Comment #70377

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 10:58 PM (e)

Comment #70347 posted by ben on January 11, 2006 10:03 PM

Larry’s scientific analysis : “don’t believe,” “must have been,” “cannot imagine,” “must not have been.” It’s not about the fossil record, it’s about Larry’s preconceived notions.

A lot of evolution “science” is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing – look at “punctuated equilibrium.” LOL What a joke.

Comment #70383

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 11:15 PM (e)

.. fond of the malty old 80 shillings myself STJ - but we’re in London for Crisakes (near kent - real hop country) - the best we’ll probably get is a can of McEwans…

well, it is supposed to be a presentation of alternative theories, so feel free to present your side of the argument. I can be persuaded to hoppiness under some circumstances. i did, after all, live around the bay area in Northern California for many years, which was a proverbial hotbed of hoppiness.

I propose that abiogenesis would occur faster in less hoppy ales tho (higher sugar content?). Please test that for me during your meeting.

otoh, since hops are related to canabis, one might be more enamored of life arising out of hoppy soup.

hmm. definetly requires further thought…

I know! let’s ask our resident expert on everything, Larry:

Larry, any thoughts on this issue? Are you even old enough to drink yet?

Comment #70397

Posted by UnMark on January 11, 2006 11:49 PM (e)

Carol, I happen to have Robert Alter’s Five Books of Moses sitting in my lap…. Your claim that the flood was local is not supported by Alter’s translation: he uses “earth” and makes no mention of Hebrew ambiguity in the footnotes. Moreover, a local flood doesn’t cleanse the Earth of the lawless behavior caused by humans following God’s directive to “go forth and multiply.” While the scientific evidence does support a local flood, that interpretation doesn’t match the context of the scripture.

To David and Carol, while the website namesake may turn you off a priori, you may find a more engaging audience for Biblical discussion on the EvilBible.com forums. It isn’t often that someone educated there takes the time to actually rebutt some of the more glaring Biblical contradictions that said website expounds upon….

I can prove that God cannot exist; why can’t you prove He can?

Comment #70402

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 12, 2006 12:00 AM (e)

Those of you who gripe about this thread or others being “taken over” by trolls such as myself or Heddle, can see here how rapidly the conversation degenerates in our absence. You non-trolls have nothing interesting or important to say. You descend precipitously into an abyss of vulgarity and verbal depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

Comment #70404

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 12:11 AM (e)

Larry, any thoughts on this issue? Are you even old enough to drink yet?

I think our Larry has the opposite problem – he’s a ‘retired engineer from Los Angeles’.

Comment #70407

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 12:14 AM (e)

You descend precipitously into an abyss of vulgarity and verbal depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

Carol, you’re a regular laff riot. Quite a revealing comment there.

As Winston Churchill (probably apocryphally) once said, “yes, but tomorrow, we’ll be sober”…

Comment #70408

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 12, 2006 12:17 AM (e)

Unmark,

I don’t have Alter’s book in front of me. If what you say is true, it is either an oversight on his part or he is just wrong. Any Hebrew-English dictionary will readily reveal that ARETZ usually means “the land of”, not “the earth”.

EvilBible.com is replete with so much silliness and ignorance, it is beneath me (I cannot speak for David) to dabble in it. I prefer to talk to intelligent and knowledgeable folk, such as those found on PT. Despite some defects in chartacter and short temperedness displayed here, I still think, as I always did, that scientists are the greatest people around. That some of them have a mental block in certain areas is worthy of my efforts.

I absolutely gaurantee that you cannot prove that God does not exist. The biggest luminares in the athiest community, such as Dawkins, have tried in vain and given up on making such a claim. And if you really thought you could do that, have you not answered your final question?

Comment #70409

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 12:22 AM (e)

You non-trolls have nothing interesting or important to say

sorry, but that’s pretty funny.

thanks for the laughs, Carol. any chance you might address some of the logical inconsistencies present througout your missives in this thread?

I know it’s hard, but I have faith that you can do it.

I think our Larry has the opposite problem — he’s a ‘retired engineer from Los Angeles’.

hmm. but didn’t larry say he was using his dad’s puter?

are we sure the retired engineer isn’t his dad?

Comment #70411

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 12:25 AM (e)

That some of them have a mental block in certain areas is worthy of my efforts.

there’s that projection defect, rearing it’s ugly head again there, Carol.

Ever studied psychology? If so, are you sure we are the ones with the mental block?

Comment #70414

Posted by Jim Harrison on January 12, 2006 12:33 AM (e)

I gave up the atheism game many decades ago because I’m not that fond of playing whack-a-mole. Since believers are unwilling or unable to provide a coherent concept of God, I have no way of knowing whether or not I believe in God. I can’t even be an agnostic since I don’t know what it is I’m supposed to doubt.

Theological and mythological questions can be interesting from a literary, historical, or sociological point of view, but grown ups ought to know better than to take them seriously.

Comment #70418

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 12:46 AM (e)

forgive me for taking this straight from a post i made in the ATBC, but..

Carol said this:

There is no denying that miracles are part of the Bible. And I don’t think that is in conflict with science. It is outside the domain of science, but not contradicted by it.

in saying this, Carol is essentially saying that if one defines any part of the bible as “miraculous” it is outside of the domain of science…

uh, hmm. isn’t that exactly where we started the whole thread?

the ability to subjectively decide that something is a “miracle” basically puts the entire bible out of the domain of science, period.

It’s untennable to maintain a position of something not in conflict, when it isn’t even in the same realm, as defined by Carol herself.

so, back where we started then. and as i suspected, everything both Carol and Heddley posted was a complete waste of time.

not the first time i have said this.

I’m sure it won’t be the last.

I’m sure we will have to remind Carol of this exact quote over and over again, while she calls all of us “close minded”.

*sigh*

the futility is ovewhelming.

Comment #70422

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 12:50 AM (e)

Now we’re getting to the meat & potatoes.

Yes, I know that the archaeopteryx is supposed to be the “missing link” between reptiles and birds. But I don’t believe that evolution from reptile to archaeopteryx and from archaeopteryx to bird occurred in single bounds; there must have been many intermediate “missing links” in between those stages.

Larry, you are absolutely correct. There were millions of intermediate steps, of microevolution. Everyone accepts microevolution.

I cannot imagine what those other “missing links” might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

Imagine, if you can, a fancy computer effect, morphing a raptor into a chicken. Are arms important to a raptor? Are wings important to a chicken? For example, if in some (impossibly improbable) freak mutation, a raptor was born with wings like a chicken, do you think the raptor could survive? Or would it keel over dead? If you were born as a prehistoric raptor with chicken arms would you fight to stay alive or would you say “I’m an abominable freak!” curl up, an die?

A lot of evolution “science” is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing — look at “punctuated equilibrium.” LOL What a joke.

Nope. Actually that’s what you are doing, right in the above paragraphs, only you’re imagining in the negative. Please tell us what you think the problem is with punctuated equilibrium.

Comment #70423

Posted by k.e. on January 12, 2006 12:52 AM (e)

Larry said he was around 60 years old ? so he is probably too OLD to drink.

…….which would explain his painful fear based “all is sorrowful” projections

Larry said:

A lot of evolution Creation “science” is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing

How is the “rapture psychosis” going Larry …tell me is that anything like Carols own personal little exodus / oh woe is me …. or Heddle’s string and banana-peel slippery slope of dipensationalist dementia ….well its magic see and heddy babe decides ..”is you is, or is you ain’t my magic”

In The Simpsons episode Thank God, It’s Doomsday, after the rapture occurs and Homer Simpson is taken to heaven, he asks God to reverse what has happened. God agrees, then proclaims “Deus ex Machina” and normality is restored magically.

oh dang that wasn’t meant to happen the words were meant to turn into whine.

dang.. dang… dang…. went the cow bells

come on Larry bore us do death please please please.

Carol and other literalists if you want to know how parts of the “Divine” word got into sacred texts around the world….yes it is real…really and truly….really in the mind.

The archetypal Hero who goes on the “inward journey” Moses, JC (probably with hemp aid) et. al. here is the modern equivalent

http://www.tygersofwrath.com/psychosis.htm

Comment #70424

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 12:53 AM (e)

The biggest luminares in the athiest community

you talk as if Atheism has a specific community, or maybe i’ts akin to a religion, eh?

except note my stress on the “A”

A-theism is just that. A LACK of belief in theisms.

there is no necessarily associated set of standards and practices for atheists.

now you could take a naturalist, and say there is a standard philosophy to which they cleave, and so have a defacto “community” (see natrualism.org)

however, there is no “atheist community” Carol.

Comment #70425

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 12:56 AM (e)

Larry said he was around 60 years old ? so he is probably too OLD to drink

ahh, I missed that. go figure.

feel free to delete the references to underage drinking then.

Larry is cleared to answer all of our questions about abiogenesis and ale varieties.

Comment #70427

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 1:07 AM (e)

depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

You should try it some time. Really, if you can’t enjoy some basal human pleasures, what have you got?

Too bad I’m not in London, I could go for a pint. Yards is a mighty fine local beer for me. Speaking of beer and evolution, are you guys aware of the beer brewed by Sam Adams, Utopias? They bred a strain of yeast specifically to survive high alcohol levels, and produced this beer that is 25.6% ABV!

Comment #70433

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 1:11 AM (e)

They bred a strain of yeast specifically to survive high alcohol levels, and produced this beer that is 25.6% ABV!

yeah, but you can’t call that “beer” in the US, uh… nyah, nyah?

*sigh*

Comment #70439

Posted by k.e. on January 12, 2006 1:26 AM (e)

STJ said:
yeah, but you can’t call that “beer” in the US, uh… nyah, nyah?

*sigh*

Man THAT IS depraved.

More from the Magical Reality rapture front

“Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.”

– Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), a fragment.

“Rebellion is a Protest Against Death”…The Question of American Guilt
.

Comment #70446

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 1:34 AM (e)

note to those testing abiogenesis/ale theories:

be careful out there!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-01-05T161559Z_01_ARM558536_RTRUKOC_0_US-DRINKING-BRITAIN.xml&archived=False

;)

Comment #70449

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 1:41 AM (e)

Is there a way to send photos to PT?
We are planning/hoping to get some “steve,steve” pics with Dawkins.
Unless we have some real strong beer first, then forget.

Darwin day talk. London. Feb 13th.

Comment #70452

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 1:55 AM (e)

contact reed, I’m sure he will assist.

Comment #70453

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 1:56 AM (e)

barring that, I have a couple of places you could post your pics and then just give out the links.

If you need, just let me know.

have fun.

Comment #70461

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 2:10 AM (e)

hmm. thought i’d test post an image…

let’s see if this works.

Comment #70468

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 2:28 AM (e)

I absolutely gaurantee that you cannot prove that God does not exist.

And I absolutely guarantee that you cannot prove god does exist. What’s your point?

Comment #70471

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 2:53 AM (e)

Comment #70265 posted by ben on January 11, 2006 07:28 PM
Nothing Larry ever says here can beat his meteor shower comment for sheer inanity

What is this nonsense about searching the Internet to see where other commenters stand on other issues? I don’t do that sort of thing. You goad people into defending themselves on off-topic issues. One of the managers of this website cut off a thread because of an off-topic discussion about my revisionist views about the holocaust — a discussion that I did not start and which I said I would no longer participate in.

Anyway, at least the subject of meteor showers is scientific, so I will say a few words about that here. I admit my letter on the subject was too skeptical, but I was satisfied with the explanations I got from the experts at Meteorobs. I wrongly thought that showers are named for constellations because the meteor trails appear to start in those constellations, but the experts told me that the meteor trails start all over the sky, but their directions appear to radiate from those constellations. They also told me that the effect of gravity on meteor direction is small but significant — they called it “zenith pull.” On the other hand, I have not been satisfied with the explanations I have gotten from evolutionists.

=======================================
“I’m from Missouri. You’ll have to show me.” —- Willard Duncan Vandiver

Comment #70473

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 2:59 AM (e)

What is this nonsense about searching the Internet to see where other commenters stand on other issues?

not other commenters, larry, just you. we simply can’t believe how dense you appear to be, so we look for verification in other places that you aren’t simply pulling our leg.

it appears, sadly, you are not.

now about your opinions on whether abiogenesis would occur faster in a porter or a stout? hoppy or not?

Comment #70474

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 2:59 AM (e)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 01:56 AM (e) (s)

barring that, I have a couple of places you could post your pics and then just give out the links.

If you need, just let me know.

have fun.

TY. S_TJ.
As for having fun. Sure going to try.

Comment #70478

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 3:21 AM (e)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 02:59 AM (e) (s)

opinions on whether abiogenesis would occur faster in a porter or a stout? hoppy or not?

My money is on the stout.
Guinness can be considered a meal.

BTW. What’s with the references to Larry and the confederate flag?

Comment #70482

Posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 3:40 AM (e)

Dean Morrison wrote:

Any others that want to join the British Panda’s Thumb chapter?

The ‘Silver Cross’, Trafalgar Square 4.30 Mon 13th Feb - then off to UCL for the British Humanist talk for Darwin Day hosted by Richard Dawkins - 6.30 at UCL near Euston.

All welcome..

Look for Prof Steve Steve and the empty barstool with Sir Toejam’s pint in front of it….

I’d love to join you, but as I’m an expat I probably won’t be able to make it. I have some Tetley’s over here in Budapest (canned, but beggars can’t be choosers!), so I’ll hoist one in your (and Darwins) honour on the 13th.

Comment #70483

Posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 3:44 AM (e)

Stephen Elliott wrote:

My money is on the stout. Guinness can be considered a meal.

I’ve heard you can sustain human life pretty much indefinitely on 8 pints of Guinness (and nothing else) per day. Sounds like a testable prediction to me ;)

Comment #70484

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 3:59 AM (e)

Request —

Would those quoting or otherwise responding to other comments please give the comment number of the comment that they are responding to ? Many commenters here give just the name of the author of the original comment or nothing at all. This comment number is very useful for checking the contexts of the original quotes or ideas and also for responding directly to the original commenter. Thanks.

Scary Larry

Comment #70485

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 4:05 AM (e)

Comment #70473 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 02:59 AM

****What is this nonsense about searching the Internet to see where other commenters stand on other issues?*****

not other commenters, larry, just you.

There are a lot of commenters here whom I would like to check out, but out of courtesy I don’t do it.

Comment #70487

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 4:17 AM (e)

Just Google his name Steve… Larry we were only trying to check if you were real. I’m on your side on that one mate, I think you’re real. Even though I can’t directly observe you.

“Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.”

— Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), a fragment.

“Those who the Troll wishes to destroy, he first drives to drink.”

- You-rippadese an’ I-a’rippa yours - Chico Marx

=======================================================
I’m from Barnstaple - It’s your round Larry.

Comment #70488

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 4:20 AM (e)

I’ve heard you can sustain human life pretty much indefinitely on 8 pints of Guinness (and nothing else) per day. Sounds like a testable prediction to me ;)

Speaking as someone who’s tried this:

“It’s life, but not as we know it Tim”

My bet is on the Guinness - especially that extra strong stuff they export to West Africa.

Comment #70491

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 12, 2006 4:32 AM (e)

Re Request,

Speaking as an amateur scripter, a darn good hacker should be able to write a script to pattern match and pull all relevent comments together in roughly 2 hours.

Comment #70492

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 4:34 AM (e)

There are a lot of commenters here whom I would like to check out, but out of courtesy I don’t do it.

Hey Larry you have my permission to Google for me - apparently I’m a handsome surfer dude

http://www.surfline.com/surfnews/article.cfm?id=1572

Larry - if you are going to publish your views all over the web (and be in possesion of a unique name) - you want people to notice them don’t you? Or have you changed your mind about the confederate flag and no longer wish to be associated with that point of view? If so please feel free to use the PT to announce your Pauline conversion.
Boy you don’t half go for lost causes don’t you - next you’ll be telling us that the South was ‘cheated’ out of winning the civil war?

Comment #70499

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 5:36 AM (e)

Comment #70422 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 12:50 AM

Larry, you are absolutely correct. There were millions of intermediate steps, of microevolution.

So what ever happened to those “missing links for the missing links” ? Why aren’t they in the fossil record ?

Everyone accepts microevolution.

Yes, but not everyone accepts that macroevolution can consist of just a series of microevolutions.

****I cannot imagine what those other “missing links” might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.*****

Imagine, if you can, a fancy computer effect, morphing a raptor into a chicken. Are arms important to a raptor? Are wings important to a chicken? For example, if in some (impossibly improbable) freak mutation, a raptor was born with wings like a chicken, do you think the raptor could survive?

You said it – impossible, improbable freak mutation is right, yet evolution supposedly consisted of zillions of such mutations.

The chicken wings on a raptor – while perhaps not detrimental – would not be a favorable mutation, whereas macro-evolution is supposed to consist of a series of favorable mutations. Also, the complete flying apparatus (including the wings and the flying muscles, which are up to one-third of the weight of birds) would have to become good enough for flying in order to provide any evolutionary advantage, but somewhere during the gradual evolution of that flying apparatus it would actually become an unacceptable burden to the creature – the extra useless weight and bulk would slow the creature down too much.

*****A lot of evolution “science” is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing — look at “punctuated equilibrium.” LOL What a joke.****

Nope. Actually that’s what you are doing, right in the above paragraphs, only you’re imagining in the negative. Please tell us what you think the problem is with punctuated equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is just philosophy, not science. It is not supported by any evidence but is actually supported by an absence of evidence – the absence of missing link fossils. An evolution denier who proposed such a ridiculous idea would be laughed out of town, but PE is widely accepted among scientists because it accepts evolution.

Scary Larry

Comment #70502

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 6:00 AM (e)

Comment #70492 posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 04:34 AM

Larry - if you are going to publish your views all over the web (and be in possesion of a unique name) - you want people to notice them don’t you? Or have you changed your mind about the confederate flag and no longer wish to be associated with that point of view?

No, I have not changed my views about the confederate flag, but I do not want to be pressured into defending those views in this forum. I do not discuss ID and evolution in forums concerning confederate symbols and the holocaust, and I do not want to discuss confederate symbols and the holocaust here — they are off-topic.

Comment #70503

Posted by Renier on January 12, 2006 6:03 AM (e)

Larry wrote :
the absence of missing link fossils

Liar. The only thing absent here is your brain or ability to reason. Go and read talkorigins.org before spouting more nonsense. There are many samples there! Are you plain stupid or do you just enjoy your ignorance?

Oh, and please provide me with evidence of the transitional fossil between you and your parents, else you have no claim to humanity. And once you have done that, please provide me with the transitional fossil between the transitional fossil between your parents and the transitional fossil to you. Carry on providing the evidence until I say you have provided enough. O crap, I am sounding like a creationist now…. GET MY POINT, LARRY?

Comment #70505

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 6:44 AM (e)

I do not want to discuss confederate symbols and the holocaust here —- they are off-topic.

This thread went off topic days ago Larry - it is only your enduring popularity that is keeping it going. The two threads I have noticed you in have to be amongst the most popular ever on the thumb.

This might not be the greatest place for you to discuss your ‘Holocaust revisionism’ theories - crikey Carol might even start wondering if she was on the wrong side. It’s going to be bad enough sharing an eternal lake of burning brimstone with her; without her joining us in this life.

So tell us about bikes instead.

And Rainer -‘Liar’ is what we’d call ‘unparliamentary language’ over here in the UK. Larry is suffering from denial ‘beyond call of duty’ but he probably believes everything he says is true. Don’t call him a liar - just encourage him to show us what a buffoon he is.

Comment #70508

Posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 6:57 AM (e)

Just for Larry, here’s the exact link on talkorigins which deals with reptile to bird intermediate fossils: here.

Please please read this Larry and then come back and talk to us about ‘missing link’ fossils again.

Comment #70519

Posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 7:30 AM (e)

As I expected, even though I specifically told Larry not to “explain away” the most famous of all the intermediates between dinosaurs and birds and ignore the rest, he nonetheless did exactly that. I don’t think he understands just how many intermediates have been found.

In keeping with the creationist troll theory, I predict that Larry will either not read Tim’s link at all or, if he does read it, he will not bring up the topic again for a few weeks, after which he will once again triumphantly point out that “there are no intermediates between reptiles and birds!” and once again look like an imbecile for pontificating about a subject he obviously knows nothing about.

That said, as I expected, I was amused by his attempt to ignore the evidence of evolution beyond the species level.

By the way, Larry, if you define “macro-evolution” as “evolution that has not been observed”, and then conclude that “macro-evolution has not been observed” apart from, as I say, looking like an imbecile, you are committing a logical fallacy. Hopefully, if I put your definition and conclusion in the same sentence you will see what I mean. When used by biologists, macro-evolution is more often than not “change above species level” - and that has, indeed, been observed in labs and in the wild, as well as left countless traces in form of fossils and DNA evidence and so on. I recommend you read through the entire 29+ Evidences article before you continue with this discussion.

Finally, I have twice said you are looking like an imbecile in this post, Larry. I do not mean to be insulting, just descriptive, of a person that is trying to talk about a subject he obviously knows nothing about. You *are* scary, Larry - it is very scary how someone lacking all knowledge of a topic attempts to teach it to people who make a living from that topic (biology, laws, computers… every topic you have brought up, Larry!).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #70531

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 8:06 AM (e)

This might not be the greatest place for you to discuss your ‘Holocaust revisionism’ theories - crikey Carol might even start wondering if she was on the wrong side.

Carol has already decided that her unwillingness to criticize “supporters” of her religious opinions is far more important than criticizing Nazi/Confederate apolgists (or people whjo think the New Testament is the Word of God).

Heddle, too, has apparently decided that his unwillingness to criticize people who are “supporters” of his religious opinion is far more important than defending the New Testament from people (like Carol) who think its full of crap.

It’s an interesting glimpse into the mind of the fundie.

I am, alas, STILL waiting for either Heddle or Carol to tell me why science should give a flying fig about their religious opinions.

Comment #70573

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 10:59 AM (e)

Comment #70508 posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 06:57 AM

Just for Larry, here’s the exact link on talkorigins which deals with reptile to bird intermediate fossils: here

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing. As for the morphological similarities between the bones of dinosaur forelegs and the bones of bird wings, shown here, these similarities do not mean that the proportionately tiny forelegs of a T.Rex can evolve into the proportionately huge wings of an eagle. And a bird is more than just a dinosaur with long forelegs that are shaped like wings; for example, the wing muscles of a bird can be one-third of the bird’s weight.

Comment #70575

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

So what ever happened to those “missing links for the missing links” ? Why aren’t they in the fossil record ?”

Larry,

Let’s try an analogy. Can you tell me all the numbers are between 1 & 10?

This is not a trick, it’s an honest question.

Comment #70576

Posted by AC on January 12, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

You descend precipitously into an abyss of vulgarity and verbal depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

Ah, the ego of asceticism. It fits so well with religious denial of man’s animal origin and nature.

On the other hand, I recognize man for what he is, and I can still be quite the snob when it comes to pursuit of intoxication and sex. The difference is realizing that it is a social - not moral - issue. It also helps to be honest about your own role in it, your own psychology, etc. But that also prevents the holier-than-thou conviction so many find irresistably pleasant.

In short, by “remembering the mind”, you only embrace your ego, for the same purpose as the wine and women of those you criticize: selfish pleasure.

Comment #70580

Posted by gregonomic on January 12, 2006 11:20 AM (e)

I don’t know about you Carol, but my mind and body are intricately linked. The occasional “pleasure of the flesh” does wonders for my mental clarity.

Could that explain why some of your thinking is so muddled, perhaps?

Comment #70583

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

Comment #70573 Posted by Larry Fafarman

The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing.

Yes it does. It shows 22 transitional fossils between dinos and birds.

Here they are, in order:

1 Eoraptor
2 Herrerasaurus
3 Ceratosaurus
4 Allosaurus
5 Compsognathus
6 Sinosauropteryx
7 Protarchaeopteryx
8 Caudipteryx
9 Velociraptor
10 Sinovenator
11 Beipiaosaurus
12 Sinornithosaurus
13 Microraptor
14 Archaeopteryx
15 Rahonavis
16 Confuciusornis
17 Sinornis
18 Patagopteryx
19 Hesperornis
20 Apsaravis
21 Ichthyornis
22 Columba

There are many other fossils that have been found that are offshoots from this sequence, and there are many more fossils that are transitions between these 22 out there we waiting to be found. Evolution predicts this. If you’re asking why we haven’t we found all of the hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils in between those 22, it’s because not every animal leaves a fossil. If they did, you wouldn’t be able to walk out of your house without tripping over one.

Comment #70499 Posted by Larry Fafarman

You said it — impossible, improbable freak mutation is right, yet evolution supposedly consisted of zillions of such mutations.

Wrong, completely wrong. My example of an impossible mutation was to show that a raptor with crappy arms wouldn’t have too much of a problem. And you agree. Raptors run and bite. Their arms just kind of flap around, sound familiar?

The “zillions” of mutations are never ever anything like my above example. They are the same tiny inconsequential changes seen in micro evolution.

Comment #70584

Posted by argy stokes on January 12, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing. As for the morphological similarities between the bones of dinosaur forelegs and the bones of bird wings, shown here, these similarities do not mean that the proportionately tiny forelegs of a T.Rex can evolve into the proportionately huge wings of an eagle. And a bird is more than just a dinosaur with long forelegs that are shaped like wings; for example, the wing muscles of a bird can be one-third of the bird’s weight.

Your argument from incredulity aside, let’s keep in mind that not all dinosaurs evolved into birds. The lineage connecting modern birds to dinosaurs probably branched out from a single reptilian species (which was probably not T. rex or Apatasaurus). Do you also doubt the common descent of bird species? After all, there’s quite a difference between kiwis, ostriches, penguins, eagles, and finches.

Comment #70587

Posted by gwangung on January 12, 2006 11:37 AM (e)

Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is just philosophy, not science. It is not supported by any evidence but is actually supported by an absence of evidence — the absence of missing link fossils.

*sigh*

You really ARE pig ignorant, are you.

One, there are plenty of transitional fossils. Two, the geographic concentration of many such fossils lead to punctuated equilibrium. Third, concepts of PE guide current research on EXISTING species. Fourth, you contradict yourself; a scarcity of transitional sequence generated the hypothesis–that is, by definition, NOT philosophy. The evidence pattern generated a hypothesis, which is being tested right now.

You use big words, but I do not think you know what they mean….

Comment #70589

Posted by Glen Davidson on January 12, 2006 11:40 AM (e)

I cannot imagine what those other “missing links” might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

I can’t bear this thread past the first 50 or so posts (even shooting down the nonsense is just so much targeting fish in a barrel), but did notice the above. I love Larry’s benighted notions, since apparently he doesn’t even know that archaeopteryx’s wings still functioned in part as claws (true of juvenile hoatzin’s as well).

The intermediate aspect of the wings is present to anyone who cares to observe and think, but not to the others.

Glen D.
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #70596

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

Penguin’s, Ostrich’s, Emu’s, et al don’t use their forelimbs as “wings” or “legs” either.

Does this mean that they aren’t viable or just that Larry can’t “imagine” them?

I’ll leave the answer to the audience to figure out.

Comment #70598

Posted by steve s on January 12, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Basic apostrophe usage:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

Comment #70600

Posted by Sam on January 12, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

Sitting on a bar stool and having a few are “the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh”? Boy, does SHE lead a sheltered life. You’re not even going to be in a nudie bar.

Comment #70601

Posted by bill on January 12, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

Perhaps we should try baby steps, here.

Eoraptor has a baby. It looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Keep doing this for a few million years. Throw in some travel and maybe a nice rift valley for grins.

Now, here’s the good part so pay attention.

After the few million years, take the baby you have in your left hand and compare it to the Original Eoraptor Baby you have in your right hand.

They are different animals. Related, but different.

Eoraptor on the right, Ceratosaurus on the left.

This is where creationists get all tangled up. At no point during this entire few million years of this example does baby grow up, have a baby and it looks way different, like sprouting a trunk, or Dumbo ears or an anti-gravity gland. Nope, it looks just like its mommy and daddy with itty-bitty little changes: mommy’s nose, daddy’s claw.

OK, Larry, we’re almost home. Here’s a pop quiz.

Rewind the tape back to the original Eoraptor population. Now, wind the tape forward and watch how one part of the population moves ever westward, and another part moves ever northward.

What do you think you might see if after a few million years you compare the West baby to the North baby to the original Eoraptor baby?

(face-saving comment: not being a biologist I apologise to those of you who are biologists for my simplistic view of things. I encourage all comments and criticisms on my simple-minded example.)

Comment #70602

Posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing. As for the morphological similarities between the bones of dinosaur forelegs and the bones of bird wings, shown here, these similarities do not mean that the proportionately tiny forelegs of a T.Rex can evolve into the proportionately huge wings of an eagle. And a bird is more than just a dinosaur with long forelegs that are shaped like wings; for example, the wing muscles of a bird can be one-third of the bird’s weight.

Larry, are you really that dense? “T. rex to eagle” is not what evolution proposes - that’s the old “hurricane in junkyard” stupidity. Evolution says that you start with the first creature in the list, and it’s species descendants evolve into the next, and so on down the list. The distance between any two given fossils in that sequence is micro-evolution, which you cannot refute, and by small steps you get from the first creature, a dinosaur, to the last, a bird. That bird will then continue to get stronger muscles and so on until you get an eagle, but you don’t need a T. rex with an eagle as a son.

Your objections are ridiculous, anyway. Not all birds need such huge muscles - emus live perfectly nice lives without ever flying. Feathers give them insulation and stability, as far as I know. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that feathered dinosaurs had similar advantages from their feathers.

Since you have managed to follow the link, did you read the rest of the article? Maybe you can tell us where the monkeys end and the humans start in the ape-to-common antecessor-to-man sequence of head pictures.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #70603

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

Comment #70583 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 11:30 AM

Comment #70573 Posted by Larry Fafarman
****The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing.****

Yes it does. It shows 22 transitional fossils between dinos and birds.

Here they are, in order:

I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list – allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds. The other two were strictly terrestrial dinosaurs similar to the T.Rex and showed no signs of transitioning into birds (actually, their sheer size makes it very unlikely that they were ancestors of today’s birds).

Comment #70604

Posted by steve s on January 12, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

Oh yeah, Larry, well, how do you explain PYGMIES AND DWARVES!!??!?!!!!!1111ONEONEONE

(hi fives cool insiders)

Comment #70605

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 12:13 PM (e) (s)


I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list — allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds. The other two were strictly terrestrial dinosaurs similar to the T.Rex and showed no signs of transitioning into birds (actually, their sheer size makes it very unlikely that they were ancestors of today’s birds).

Was that a typo?

BTW. Not all birds fly Larry. So why does terrestrial matter so much?

Comment #70607

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 12:27 PM (e)

Comment #70603 Posted by Larry Fafarman

Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds.

Well, that’s a start. You recognise one transitional fossil between dinos and birds.

Comment #70608

Posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 12:28 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list — allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds. The other two were strictly terrestrial dinosaurs similar to the T.Rex and showed no signs of transitioning into birds (actually, their sheer size makes it very unlikely that they were ancestors of today’s birds).

This is the opinion of someone who knows about dinosaurs because he saw Jurassic Park. Note to the clueless (i.e. Larry): the velociraptor was not only smaller than what was shown in the films, it was also feathered! “Fully terrestrial”, maybe, but with feathers, and very fast and light on its feet(he used that claw in the toe to rip out jugulars!).

And of course, Larry cannot comprehend the concept of intermediates: each species is an intermediate between the one before and the one after - which is what he asked for.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

Comment #70611

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 12:38 PM (e)

Let’s do another analogy!

Let’s say an organism has 1,000,000,000,000 base pairs in it’s genome.

Let’s say the mutation rate between a parent and an adult is 0.00001% of their genome (which means that 100,000 pairs are different).

Let’s assume that a generation takes 10 years.

Since it’s been 65,000,000 years since dinosaurs where around, that means that we could have had 6,500,000 generations since the dinosaurs.

6,500,000 x 0.00001% = 65% change. So the genome could have changed 65% of the genome in that amount of time. Considering that the difference between chimps is 1 to ~4% depending upon how you keep score, that’s a pretty big difference!

Of course the rate of change is drastically different in different parts of the genome, but you should have a good feel for the order of magnitude of change that’s possible in that period of time.

Comment #70612

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 12:50 PM (e)

Comment #70602 posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 12:13 PM

Larry, are you really that dense? “T. rex to eagle” is not what evolution proposes - that’s the old “hurricane in junkyard” stupidity.

I did not literally mean that T.Rex was a likely ancestor of modern birds. I just used T.Rex as an extreme example because it is well known that its forelegs were proportionately remarkably puny in size. Please give me some poetic license.

The distance between any two given fossils in that sequence is micro-evolution, which you cannot refute

I disagree – I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.

Not all birds need such huge muscles - emus live perfectly nice lives without ever flying

Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles. A mutation that improves the flying apparatus without producing flying ability would not be a favorable mutation, and macro-evolution is supposed to consist of a series of favorable mutations. Also, at some point of development the flying apparatus would still not be good enough for flying but would be heavy enough and bulky enough to be an unacceptable burden to the organism. Anyway, the dinosaur-to-birds transition is just one example of the problems I have described here – there may be better examples.

Comment #70615

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 1:00 PM (e)

Comment #70608 posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 12:28 PM

This is the opinion of someone who knows about dinosaurs because he saw Jurassic Park. Note to the clueless (i.e. Larry): the velociraptor was not only smaller than what was shown in the films, it was also feathered!

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

Scary Larry

Comment #70617

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 1:04 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I disagree — I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.

Great. Please tell us where/what the limit is, then. How long is it possible for the “bridge” to be, and what factors act in its alleged limitations? Please be specific.

Larry wrote:

A mutation that improves the flying apparatus without producing flying ability would not be a favorable mutation, and macro-evolution is supposed to consist of a series of favorable mutations.

What would the purpose be in describing something as “flying apparatus” if it doesn’t enable flight?

Comment #70618

Posted by matt on January 12, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

whats your peoples problem with religion? jeebus loves you. return the gift of love to him. love jeebus cherish him. hes your pandasthumb, if it werent for him this dumb forum wouldnt exist bitches

Comment #70620

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 1:08 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

…I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

OK, that’s it. Larry can’t be that dumb.

Comment #70623

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 1:11 PM (e)

Comment #70607 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 12:27 PM

Comment #70603 Posted by Larry Fafarman
****Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds****.

Well, that’s a start. You recognise one transitional fossil between dinos and birds.

Correction — I should have said that it appears to be a transitional form. I really have to dot all my i’s and cross all my t’s on this website.

So you spell it “recognise”? Maybe another Britisher in this forum? Did you know that creationism is taught as science in some British government-funded schools?

Comment #70624

Posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I disagree — I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.

Yes, we know that. That is, in fact, all that you do: you assert that it is “impossible”. This is the fallacy of personal incredulity. Newsflash: just because you cannot imagine a way something happened, it doesn’t mean it didn’t. You have failed to produce anything more substantial than your personal opinion while everyone else has positively buried you in facts and evidence.

Larry wrote:

Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles. A mutation that improves the flying apparatus without producing flying ability would not be a favorable mutation, and macro-evolution is supposed to consist of a series of favorable mutations. Also, at some point of development the flying apparatus would still not be good enough for flying but would be heavy enough and bulky enough to be an unacceptable burden to the organism. Anyway, the dinosaur-to-birds transition is just one example of the problems I have described here — there may be better examples.

A mutation gave veliciraptors (or maybe an antecessor of them) feathers. This is a positive mutation since it is better to combat cold than scales. Some of the lighter dinosaurs became better runners and jumpers thanks to the particular characteristics of the feathers (lightness, air support). They started to increase speed and jump distance by flapping their arms - just long distance jumpers do in humans - except that, because of feathers, this was a *very* positive impact in jumping ability. Stronger and stronger arms got selected. Eventually, some of them could actually “fly” in the sense of prolonging jumping distance by flapping their arms.

That’s a simplified version of the evolution of wings.

And you’re *still* ignoring the fact that not all birds fly. The velociraptor depended on land speed - feathers help that somewhat. He also had to survive winters, and feathers *really* helped that. Your complaints are, once again, ignorant.

Larry wrote:

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

That is just pathetic. I gave you a link to the wikipedia but you, too scared to be shown wrong, simply claim that a Hollywood product and 10 year old books might be more reliable than wikipedia. Do you realize how pathetic that is? Follow the link, Larry: there is a nice section dedicated exclusively to explain the feathers of velociraptors.

The foremost reason why Jurassic Park was wrong: in 1993, we didn’t yet know that velociraptors were feathered (feathers fossilize badly). Paleontology has moved on in the last 12 years, Larry - unlike you, it seems.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: let’s try again, Larry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

Comment #70625

Posted by RBH on January 12, 2006 1:23 PM (e)

Larry wrote

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

Yeah, and “Contact” the movie shows exactly how SETI researchers attempt to detect signals produced by intelligences. Science fiction is the primary source of information about science for intelligent design creationists. Bog forbid that they actually learn some science.

RBH

Comment #70626

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 1:25 PM (e)

Comment #70617 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 01:04 PM

Larry wrote:
****I disagree — I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.****

Great. Please tell us where/what the limit is, then. How long is it possible for the “bridge” to be, and what factors act in its alleged limitations? Please be specific.

— after you tell me why you think that the gaps are small enough to be bridged by micro-evolution.

What would the purpose be in describing something as “flying apparatus” if it doesn’t enable flight?

I was talking about a flying apparatus in the process of evolutionary development – obviously.

Comment #70629

Posted by Liz Tracey on January 12, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

So you spell it “recognise”? Maybe another Britisher in this forum? Did you know that creationism is taught as science in some British government-funded schools?

Did a person from the UK beat you as a child or something? You toss this around in an attempt to distract others while you try to get out of the corner – it’s futile really; your ability to be cornered is only exceeded by your obsession with “Britishers” [sic]

Comment #70630

Posted by MP on January 12, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

I know the level of ignorance displayed by M. Fafarman and other trolls here is almost beyond belief (He did just say Jurassic Park wouldn’t have deviated from paleontology). In case no one has seen it before, I thought I’d pass along a psychology study from Cornell that provides scientific rationale for the pride they seem to have in their ignorance.
Here’s a bit of the abstract:
“People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.”

Comment #70631

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

Larry, Larry, Larry. You made the intitial assertion. You see “distances” that must be “bridged,” and have apparently assigned some limiting factor to them. All I’m asking is for you to explain yourself.

Comment #70632

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

“Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.”

Translation: Not only are these people stupid; they’re too stupid to realize they’re stupid.

Comment #70633

Posted by Miah on January 12, 2006 1:36 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

The Bible (old testament, of course) clearly states that it is addressed to a small group of people, referred to as the children of Israel, who were designated by Him as the chosen people and assigned special responsiblities. We can speculate endlessly as to why He did so, and I can think of quite a few good reasons, but did so He did.

Hmmm….where have I read something similar to this before???

Oh yeah, it was in Mein Kampf!

Comment #70634

Posted by MP on January 12, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

“Translation: Not only are these people stupid; they’re too stupid to realize they’re stupid.”

Exactly, but it’s so much more fun to have scientific validation for it.

Comment #70635

Posted by steve s on January 12, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

Do you guys need any more evidence? He doesn’t believe this nonsense. He’s just having fun provoking you.

Comment #70637

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 1:42 PM (e)

'I saw it in a work of fiction so it must be true' Larry wrote:

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

Troll alert!

Comment #70640

Posted by gwangung on January 12, 2006 1:59 PM (e)

—- after you tell me why you think that the gaps are small enough to be bridged by micro-evolution.

Not how it works.

You made the claim. You support it.

Comment #70641

Posted by KL on January 12, 2006 2:06 PM (e)

Still waitin’ on those alma mater(s), Larry.

Comment #70643

Posted by KL on January 12, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

Oh, and degrees/subject areas would be nice.

Comment #70645

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 2:30 PM (e)

Comment #70624 posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 01:16 PM

They started to increase speed and jump distance by flapping their arms - just long distance jumpers do in humans - except that, because of feathers, this was a *very* positive impact in jumping ability.

The velociraptor depended on land speed – feathers help that somewhat.

So where are the fossils of these dinosaurs that were able to jump great distances by flapping their rudimentary wings?

And did this jumping ability increase speed – or just slow down these dinosaurs? Did this jumping ability increase their ability to catch prey or escape predators? You yourself admitted that the velociraptors depended on land speed – and these rudimentary wings and flying muscles must have slowed them down. And how did the feathers increase speed?

Comment #70648

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 2:34 PM (e)

ding ding!

over 500 posts!

wow larry, you sure know how to draw em in!

what comes after beer bongs?

hmm.

Comment #70653

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 2:46 PM (e)

Comment #70640 Posted by gwangung

—- after you tell me why you think that the gaps are small enough to be bridged by micro-evolution.

Not how it works.

You made the claim. You support it.

Yes Larry, please do support your claim. Here is why I have a hard time believing that the amount of change needed from generation to generation is too large:

If it takes 10 million generations (is this a reasonable number guys?) to go from something you can’t call a bird to something you can call a bird, then the size of the gaps would be 1/10,000,000th of the difference between the bird and the not bird. Are gaps this size not small enough for you???

Comment #70654

Posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 2:52 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

So where are the fossils of these dinosaurs that were able to jump great distances by flapping their rudimentary wings?

And did this jumping ability increase speed — or just slow down these dinosaurs? Did this jumping ability increase their ability to catch prey or escape predators? You yourself admitted that the velociraptors depended on land speed — and these rudimentary wings and flying muscles must have slowed them down. And how did the feathers increase speed?

You do know that emus and ostriches are amongst the fastest runners on Earth, don’t you? (who am I kidding - dense!Larry doesn’t consider them birds, because they don’t fly) Their big wings and muscles don’t slow them down at all, Larry. Feathers are light - and at the start of feathered limbs their muscles wouldn’t be developed. You’re still thinking “small limb -> huge wings” in a single step, Larry. They would start with small, light limbs that would *help* a little when jumping and so on. The ones that had better feathers/slightly stronger limbs would be better jumpers and quicker runners and better insulated, and thus would survive to have children. This is very basic stuff, Larry, and I’m bored with your abject stupidity, so why don’t you go read a few good books on evolution before continuing to display your ignorance publicly?

And velociraptors are a good example of good jumper, fast, hunter. They used it to hunt - we even have a fossil of a velociraptor hunting! Velociraptors, also, stole eggs, IIRC, so they would also rely on fast escapes from angry mothers. And again, those lighter, with good jumping muscles and better ability to flap would be the ones that would survive to have children, on average.

By the way, Larry, just for a change, why don’t you at least admit that you were wrong, wrong, wrong about velociraptors and feathers?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #70655

Posted by bill on January 12, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

Hey, Uber, are you telling me that the baby proto-bird looks like its mommy (also a proto-bird)?

What a concept! (comment #70601)

Comment #70657

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 2:54 PM (e)

Take The “Done With Larry” Pledge

I’m doing it. Please join me. He’s wasting everyone’s time and energy, has no intention of participating and probably isn’t even smart enough to be having a good laugh doing it.

“I will not respond to anything Larry Fafarman writes on PT, no matter how inane, dishonest, off-topic, self-aggrandizing, or bewildering moronic it might be. He neither offers, nor intends to offer, any positive contribution to discussion of matters relevant to PT. There is no reason to respond to his posts because every argument and observation he presents is either recycled, garbled, or simply invented in his own mind, and he has no intention of adjusting any of his preconceived ideas to fit new or existing evidence. Bye Larry.”

Please join me. End the farce.

Comment #70658

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

Lalalarry pooted:

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing.

Klink: “Schhhultzzz!”

Schultz: “I see nothhhing! nothing!”

I can just picuture Larry with his hands over his eyes screaming LALALALALALAALALALA just as loud as he can.

pathetic.

Comment #70659

Posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

LaughingstockLarry wrote:

Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles.

Well, no, actually, not necessarily. Take a good look at an albatross, for instance. Scanty wing muscles, not particularly muscular pectorals. They mostly soar on the lift generated by wind blowing across waves.

Soaring a short distance - as “flying” (more properly gliding) squirrels do is a clear advantage in forests. They’re no more muscular than “normal” squirrels. While I’m not up on the fossil record to know whether or not we’ve gleaned information as to whether soaring or powered flight evolved first in birds, it’s not difficult to see how the ability to make short gliding flights would evolve.

Comment #70660

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 3:01 PM (e)

The ones that had better feathers/slightly stronger limbs would be better jumpers and quicker runners and better insulated, and thus would survive to have children.

in trying to dumb things down for Lalalarry’s sake, don’t forget that one of the primary selective pressures on feather size and shape in some species of modern birds is sexual in nature (think birds of paradise for some excellent examples, or peacocks).

just stressing that the important part of the above quote is the “have children (offspring)” part. not only do you have to survive to maturity, but you have to get a mate as well.

Comment #70662

Posted by KL on January 12, 2006 3:03 PM (e)

“I’m doing it. Please join me. He’s wasting everyone’s time and energy, has no intention of participating and probably isn’t even smart enough to be having a good laugh doing it.”

I’ll be happy to pledge. Although I am learning a lot about evolutionary biology from reading these posts, (and even a bit about law, when some of you legal types write in) but all I’m learning from Larry is human psychopathology. However, for my students’ sake, I need that one little bit of info I have been asking for. (going on a couple of weeks, now) So, how ‘bout it? Throw me a bone, here…

Comment #70664

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 3:13 PM (e)

And did this jumping ability increase speed — or just slow down these dinosaurs? Did this jumping ability increase their ability to catch prey or escape predators? You yourself admitted that the velociraptors depended on land speed — and these rudimentary wings and flying muscles must have slowed them down. And how did the feathers increase speed?

like a typical creationist, larry is shifting gears away from the fact that he really can’t deny that these transitional fossils actually exist (well he DID, but he clearly made himself look like a complete idiot).

Now he tries to get us to expound upon just so stories.

the fact of the matter is Larry, it doesn’t MATTER what we postulate as to the function of feathers, or wing like structures. the fact of the matter is, we don’t even have to. they are THERE. we don’t have to postulate why they might or might not have been functional, because they EXIST.

What folks are trying to do for you now, is to explain what might have been the acting selective pressures that could have caused the features we ACTUALLY see in the fossil record, based on the hundreds and thousands of experiments that actually demonsrate same or similar selective pressures acting on modern birds and reptiles and mamamls.

so, do yourself a favor and first admit that you were wrong, that these transitional fossils DO exist (and there are plenty of organisms with even far MORE complete transitional sets than birds and whales and horses).

then we can move on to trying to spend another 500 posts convincing you that there have been hundreds of studies, which you can readily read for yourself, that demonstrate how selective pressures form the structures we find in modern birds, etc., and how we can extrapolate back to those transitional fossils by direct comparison of morphology, if not by actual direct experiment itself.

are you ready to continue this for another 500 posts?

does anybody know what comes after beer bongs? I forget.

Comment #70665

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 3:15 PM (e)

Throw me a bone, here…

lol.

velociraptor or packycetus?

Comment #70666

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 3:18 PM (e)

packicetus.

i really should use the preview function more often.

Comment #70667

Posted by gwangung on January 12, 2006 3:28 PM (e)

So where are the fossils of these dinosaurs that were able to jump great distances by flapping their rudimentary wings?

No.

You made a claim.

Support it.

Comment #70670

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 3:32 PM (e)

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 02:54 PM (e) (s)

Take The “Done With Larry” Pledge

I’m doing it. Please join me. He’s wasting everyone’s time and energy, has no intention of participating and probably isn’t even smart enough to be having a good laugh doing it.

“I will not respond to anything Larry Fafarman writes on PT, no matter how inane, dishonest, off-topic, self-aggrandizing, or bewildering moronic it might be. He neither offers, nor intends to offer, any positive contribution to discussion of matters relevant to PT. There is no reason to respond to his posts because every argument and observation he presents is either recycled, garbled, or simply invented in his own mind, and he has no intention of adjusting any of his preconceived ideas to fit new or existing evidence. Bye Larry.”

Please join me. End the farce.

Awwwwwww. I think Larry is funny.
Not totally convinced he is genuine though.
Perhaps Larry actually accepts evolution and is just lampooning a creationist.

Some of his assertions seem too stupid for someone who can turn on a PC. He also shows indications of being able to read. At least to the posts he thinks he is capable of responding to.

Comment #70676

Posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 3:46 PM (e)

ben, I’m in with the pledge.

Comment #70677

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 3:52 PM (e)

Take The “Done With Larry” Pledge,

Ben, I’m in.

Comment #70681

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 4:03 PM (e)

Take The “Done With Larry” Pledge

… waay back when this page was young I made a plea to ignore the ignore the Trolls then three came along and the chimp party started.
500+ posts later the party is still going … without looking can you remember what the original topic of this thread was?
Somehow we’ve managed to get from Dembski: via Larry’s legal ramblings; through Biblical interpretation; beery substances; definitions of ‘macroevolution’; Larry’s physical reality in this world Hollywood Blockbuster interpretation; to - whether feathers could help dinosaurs jump.

How did this happen Larry?

Did we go from Dembski to jumping fluffy dinosaurs in ‘one jump’ - or lots of little steps?

If the record wasn’t complete how would you know there was a link?

Doesn’t prove anything of course - but a demonstration of how little steps can add up to big changes over time… and without any ‘intelligence’ directing the show (or any intelligence I can see at any rate!)

Personally I think this is fun - we should aim for the thousand - as soon as this link dies off then Larry will only go to infect a new one - so we are doing the other discussions a favour.

So I say VOTE for LARRY and CAROL an DAVID! - The dream team! - guaranteed to bring hilarity to your neighbourhood! Let the 1000 post tea party commence! We don’t know where we’re going but with strength, strong drink and iron-cast will we will get there together…!

……. (falls off bar stool frothing at the mouth)

Comment #70682

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 4:06 PM (e)

Comment #70623 Posted by Larry Fafarman

So you spell it “recognise”? Maybe another Britisher in this forum? Did you know that creationism is taught as science in some British government-funded schools?

1) No, I’m not a ‘Britisher’, if that’s the extent of my spelling mistakes, I’m pretty happy.

2) If you really were clever you would already know where I’m from. One of my posts in this thread gave away the exact city where I live.

3) Who cares where anyone’s from, especially since:

4) I really liked the answers that the real Brits gave to your assertions and:

5) Creationism is not taught as science in British public schools, even the religious ones. If you disagree with me please don’t respond here. Take it to After the Bar Closes.

//

bill: yeah, unbelievable, huh?

Sir_Toejam: regular bongs of course!

Comment #70684

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 4:11 PM (e)

I think our Larry has the opposite problem — he’s a ‘retired engineer from Los Angeles’.

hmm. but didn’t larry say he was using his dad’s puter?

are we sure the retired engineer isn’t his dad?

While Larry does show some signs of extreme emotional immaturity, I’m starting to think there is something very cranky-old-man in his thought processes. The extreme rigidity of thought, the replacement of reason with parroted talking points mixed with gut hunches, the refusal to admit he’s ever been wrong, and the eagerness to express pulled-out-of-his-ass opinions with no evidence. The lack of exposure to any real scholarship about anything for at least the last 30 years is just icing on the cake.

And, I hate to say it, the ‘retired engineer’ description is way too believable. Just enough education to be convinced he’s a genius, but not enough education to actually know anything – all coupled with WAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much free time.

Also note the isolation and desperation for companionship so deep that he’s willing to stay here for 3 weeks and counting while getting smacked down and humiliated constantly . This too would seem to yell out ‘septuagenarian-with-no-life’.

Besides, what young person would write dozens of letters to newspaper and magazine editors over a span of several years defending the use of the Confederate flag?

Comment #70685

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

Personally I think this is fun - we should aim for the thousand

I completely agree. let’s set a record!

Pim himself would have closed this thread long ago if he wasn’t curious to see just how long it would go, I’m guessing.

and I will completely agree to follow the “pledge” in any new threads from now on.

Sir_Toejam: regular bongs of course!

hmm. that makes sense. I don’t recall having made it past the beer bong stage any time the issue “came up” ;)

ah, but that was long ago and far away. I’ve put a quarter century or more behind me since my “beer bong” days.

Comment #70687

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

As an aside - Richard Dawkins was on ‘BBC Radio 5’ today to talk about his UK TV series ‘Religion the Root of all Evil?’ - the ‘Dover Trial’ gets a passing mention at the very end when the next guest comes on - a UK Army pastor who shows he doesn’t understand what ID is (and doesn’t believe in it either).

Richard Dawkins on BBC Radio 5 live

Comment #70688

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

……. (falls off bar stool frothing at the mouth)

fortitude, man! we’ve a long way to go yet.

have a cup o joe, and pace yourself.

Comment #70689

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

and I will completely agree to follow the “pledge” in any new threads from now on.

(picks himself off floor)

me too - (well I’ll try at least)

Comment #70690

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

Did Carol and Heddley give up and go home?

I think Carol definetly has some thinking to do, based on the very clear logical inconsistencies in her presentation in this thread.

Heddley ran away before we could even pin him down, as usual.

hmm. speaking of Dawkins…

does anybody want to go into whether The Blind Watchmaker deals with evolutionary hypotheses of abiogenesis or not?

I’m sure it would attract several ID proponents, and I’m sure larry would chime in, once he understands what I’m talking about.

Comment #70691

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

Comment #70659 posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 02:56 PM

LaughingstockLarry wrote: ****Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles.*****

DonTheDunce answered:
Well, no, actually, not necessarily. Take a good look at an albatross, for instance. Scanty wing muscles, not particularly muscular pectorals. They mostly soar on the lift generated by wind blowing across waves.

The wing muscles on an albatross would have to be large just to support the weight of the bird. And on an albatross, those muscles must be tireless because the albatross can soar for days — a reason to believe that the wing muscles must be especially large.

Comment #70697

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

I think Carol definetly has some thinking to do, based on the very clear logical inconsistencies in her presentation in this thread.

Heddley ran away before we could even pin him down, as usual.

Prediction: they will both reappear in 2-5 days, behaving the exact same way all over again. Heddle will still be blithering about his scientific support for the Bible and against evolution, while Carol will resume claiming that everything in the bible makes total sense if you just re-examine what the original Hebrew words are, and please, buy Mister Landa’s book.

Comment #70700

Posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 4:43 PM (e)

LaughingstockLarry wrote:

The wing muscles on an albatross would have to be large just to support the weight of the bird. And on an albatross, those muscles must be tireless because the albatross can soar for days —- a reason to believe that the wing muscles must be especially large.

Idiot. The albatross doesn’t require any energy in holding its wings outstretched for hundreds of miles at a time. Instead, the albatross has a “wing lock” mechanism at its shoulder and elbow joints.

Comment #70705

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

Comment #70631 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 01:30 PM
Larry, Larry, Larry. You made the intitial assertion. You see “distances” that must be “bridged,” and have apparently assigned some limiting factor to them. All I’m asking is for you to explain yourself.

I don’t remember making the initial assertion, but I will answer your question.

Your guess about reasonable limits of the sizes of the steps of micro-evolution are as good as mine. A lot of evolution theory is just subjective philosophizing – it is not science. For example, one of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses at the Dover trial testified that middle ear bones could have evolved from jawbones, and the gullible Judge Jones put that notion in his opinion as though it were fact just because a prominent scientist said it.

I would say that the sizes of the gaps in the fossil record are far larger than any instance of micro-evolution that has ever been observed in recorded history.

Scary Larry

Comment #70707

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

damn don, i was going to suggest that larry could actually look this up for himself, rather than relying on erroneous supposition, as he is readily wont to do.

oh well. saves him the trouble, I guess.

Comment #70708

Posted by bill on January 12, 2006 4:57 PM (e)

I’m on the pledge!

Larry is worse than JAD. At least old JAD had a “thesis,” mobius though it was.

Comment #70709

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 04:03 PM (e) (s)

… waay back when this page was young I made a plea to ignore the ignore the Trolls then three came along and the chimp party started.
500+ posts later the party is still going … without looking can you remember what the original topic of this thread was?
Somehow we’ve managed to get from Dembski: via Larry’s legal ramblings; through Biblical interpretation; beery substances; definitions of ‘macroevolution’; Larry’s physical reality in this world Hollywood Blockbuster interpretation; to - whether feathers could help dinosaurs jump.

How did this happen Larry?

Did we go from Dembski to jumping fluffy dinosaurs in ‘one jump’ - or lots of little steps?

If the record wasn’t complete how would you know there was a link?

Doesn’t prove anything of course - but a demonstration of how little steps can add up to big changes over time… and without any ‘intelligence’ directing the show (or any intelligence I can see at any rate!)

That actually makes a pretty good point ;)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 04:03 PM (e) (s)


Personally I think this is fun - we should aim for the thousand - as soon as this link dies off then Larry will only go to infect a new one - so we are doing the other discussions a favour.

I have also thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Lets go for it. Post count +1

Comment #70711

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 4:59 PM (e)

I would say that the sizes of the gaps in the fossil record are far larger than any instance of micro-evolution that has ever been observed in recorded history.

of course you would, larry, having put blinders on and refusing to actually see what IS there, you are completely free to make up any absurd thing you wish.

like, uh, oh that albatross’ MUST have large wing muscles ‘cause they do so much gliding, for example.

can’t you see how bad thinking without looking is? you could get hurt!

Comment #70713

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 5:06 PM (e)

The word “larry” now appears 332 times on this thread.

Just ignore him.

“Never try to teach a pig Larry Fafarman to sing think coherently. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig feeds his ego.

Comment #70716

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 5:11 PM (e)

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 05:06 PM (e) (s)

The word “larry” now appears 332 times on this thread.

For some strange reason, that really amused me.
Perhaps I am going daft.

BTW. What did you do to find that out?

Comment #70718

Posted by Alan Fox on January 12, 2006 5:14 PM (e)

This thread is a good argument for re-erecting the bathroom wall, with Larry being locked in.

Comment #70719

Posted by KL on January 12, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

OK, it’s clear I am not going to get an answer; guess I’ll have to assume that, like Josh Bozeman, Larry has no post-high school education, lives with his folks, uses his father’s aol account, and has no training in any of the areas being discussed on this blog. Guess my kids are safe applying to any institution, provided it is accredited. It is taking too long to upload 550+ posts on this old Compaq, so I’m pledgin’ and signin’ off.

Comment #70723

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 12, 2006 5:26 PM (e)

I gave up on conversing with the maroon long ago, and can certainly sympathize with our pledge-takers.

However, this thread has regularly given rise to humor, in both micro- and mega-doses, and there is something to be said for treating it as a kind of “Larry “Maroon Cordon.”

And the notion of a 1,000 comment “record” is enticing, even if it appeals only to the obsessive in me. And watching this page load is probably as interesting as most other things while doing other, more entertaining chores–like loading the bong…

And I’m very faintly interested in whether this particular maroon will turn out to be nine or ninety.

Comment #70726

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

Comment #70700 posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 04:43 PM

LaughingstockLarry wrote:
*****The wing muscles on an albatross would have to be large just to support the weight of the bird. And on an albatross, those muscles must be tireless because the albatross can soar for days —- a reason to believe that the wing muscles must be especially large.*****

DonTheDunce answered:

Idiot. The albatross doesn’t require any energy in holding its wings outstretched for hundreds of miles at a time. Instead, the albatross has a “wing lock” mechanism at its shoulder and elbow joints.

Couldn’t you have brought that interesting piece of trivia to my attention without calling me an idiot ? OK, so I learned something new today.

I probably would not have found out this interesting fact on my own, because I checked several websites about the albatross and none of them mentioned it.

However, I did find out that the albatross is capable of flapping its enormous wings –

“The downside of this superb adaptation to soaring flight is that when an albatross has to flap its wings, as during takeoffs and landings or if there is no wind to soar on, the energy costs are high.” See – http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/00-01/04-09/albatross.html

And fairly large wing muscles would be required just to extend such huge wings.

Comment #70727

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

The word “larry” now appears 332 times on this thread.

338, including this post.

Comment #70728

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:36 PM (e)

damn, larry posted at the same time as i did.

erm…

make that 340, as of right… now.

Comment #70730

Posted by gwangung on January 12, 2006 5:37 PM (e)

I don’t remember making the initial assertion, but I will answer your question.

Sorry, but this was not an answer.

Try again. Do some research. Use some facts or a bit pf physical evidence.

Couldn’t you have brought that interesting piece of trivia to my attention without calling me an idiot

Folks around here DO try to be accurate and precise in their descriptions.

Comment #70731

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 5:39 PM (e)

Comment #70657 posted by ben on January 12, 2006 02:54 PM

Take The “Done With Larry” Pledge

I’m doing it. Please join me.

I think that urging other commenters to not respond to someone is in very bad taste. I think that Lenny Flank is a jerk — he even flamed me in response to a post of mine that actually supported his position — but I never asked other commenters to stop responding to him.

Scary Larry

Comment #70732

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:43 PM (e)

And fairly large wing muscles would be required just to extend such huge wings.

amazing as your devotion to unsubstantiated suppositional thinking is, Larry (341), perhaps just this once you might actually look up whether or not albatross actually have large wing muscles or not?

you could actually begin an argument for your supposition if you could demonstrate the actual musculature structure of albatross first.

In fact, perhaps you might take the utter failure of your original unsupported claim to be suggestive of the fact that you perhaps should START by researching what you intend to expound upon, rather than just barfing up your “little pearls of wisdom”, eh?

(why is the word “albatross” so fitting for Larry (342) somehow?)

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

albatross around one’s neck

An annoying burden: “That old car is an albatross around my neck.” Literally, an albatross is a large sea bird. The phrase alludes to Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” in which a sailor who shoots a friendly albatross is forced to wear its carcass around his neck as punishment.

ahhh, that’s it.

Comment #70733

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 5:44 PM (e)

Isn’t it kind of striking how the tone of the L-man’s messages has remained so utterly consistent over the course of 500 messages and three weeks, no matter what happens to him?

All I can say is, if he isn’t at least 70 years old, god help him.

Comment #70734

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

damnit! slow down larry, i can’t count that fast.

let’s see…

345.

Comment #70735

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Did you know that there are ‘flying snakes’ Larry? It’s true! Now you’ll tell me snakes can’t fly because they don’t have enormous wing muscles - but some do - really! If you don’t beleive me check it out. (Of course you , David and Carol, think there was one that could talk as well - but that’s another story and anyone who would think a ‘talking snake’ was a good idea had had one bong too many in my opinion - bound to lead to trouble).
=============================================
I’m from Los Angeles - you’ll have to look it up for me!

Comment #70736

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

I’m from Los Angeles - you’ll have to look it up for me!

lol. having spent much time working with business clientelle from LA, you couldn’t imagine how accurate that statement truly is!

oh, and…

346.

Comment #70738

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 5:51 PM (e)

The word “larry” now appears 332 times on this thread.

For some strange reason, that really amused me.
Perhaps I am going daft.

BTW. What did you do to find that out?

I copied all the text on the page, pasted it into excel, and did a “find all.”

Comment #70740

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

not only are there flying snakes, Larry (347), but there are flying lizards, frogs, and fish as well!

my god, what will HE think of next!

oh, btw, just to cut to the chase, these are examples of “parrallel evolution”. Grok that for us, would ya Larry (348)?

Comment #70741

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry.

We’re all Larry, all the time!

Comment #70742

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

or parallel, even :p

i’m having to type too fast to keep up with the Larry (349) count.

Comment #70743

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

I think that urging other commenters to not respond to someone is in very bad taste. I think that Lenny Flank is a jerk —- he even flamed me in response to a post of mine that actually supported his position —- but I never asked other commenters to stop responding to him.

Hey I’m on your side Larry! Vote for Larry!

Did you believe me when I mentioned the flying snakes Larry? - or did you think I was making it up?

============================================

I’m from Los Angeles - so I’ll have to ask the nice Lady at the Library to look it up!

Comment #70744

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 6:00 PM (e)

We’re all Larry, all the time!

bastard!

hmm… 453.

Comment #70746

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

I may finally have tracked him down!

http://www.stoogeworld.com/_Biographies/Larry.htm

Comment #70747

Posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

One of the coolest things in the world: flying snake videos.

Comment #70748

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

“I got blisters on me fingers”

I’m gonna take a break and do a few laps in the pool.

cheers

Comment #70750

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 05:51 PM (e) (s)

I copied all the text on the page, pasted it into excel, and did a “find all.”

Cheers.
What I can’t help wondering though is why?

PS. Glad you did. For some reason I find it funny.
I see poor old Sir_TJ is fascinated as well. How many Larrys is that now Sir_TJ?

Comment #70755

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

STJ's voicemail wrote:

Hi, this is STJ’s voicemail. I can’t come to the keyboard right now. After the tone, please leave your screenname and thread and I’ll get back to you as soon as possible… BEEP!

He’s out swimming laps. We’ll have to wait for him to finish and let his fingers drive before we’ll get the official count.

Comment #70756

Posted by jim on January 12, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

make that “dry”, duh!

Comment #70761

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 12, 2006 6:36 PM (e)

I’m sorry. My strikeout of Larry in my last post was not intended to screw up the name count.

Please–if necessary, I have no idea whether “find all” finds terms that have been stricken–deduct two, um, names from the count, and I’ll promise to strike out no more (would that my minor league coach could have received the benefit of that pledge!).

But, silly me, I somehow thought we were working towards a thousand comments, not a thousand, um, you knows…

Comment #70764

Posted by Larry L. Larryson on January 12, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

You rang?

Comment #70776

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 7:15 PM (e)

ahhh. a few laps in the pool, followed by a quick soak in the hottub. Almost as good as a trip to the pub.

anyway, where were we…

at this point, I think we all agree this has become larry’s thread, so..

larry, what do YOU want to talk about?

c’mon now, I’m sure you haven’t run out of pearls to throw before us swine yet?

oh and..

461.

strikeouts and names as a part of a link, like larry.com (462) count.

but larryscrumpdeliicious doesn’t, nor does larryson since there is not a distinct “larry” (463) there.

the post count for the thread is kept automatically, so there is no reason to pay someone to keep track of that.

uh, you did realize i was getting paid to keep the Larrycount™ didn’t you?

Comment #70779

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 7:21 PM (e)

Comment #70732 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 05:43 PM

****And fairly large wing muscles would be required just to extend such huge wings.****

amazing as your devotion to unsubstantiated suppositional thinking is, Larry (341), perhaps just this once you might actually look up whether or not albatross actually have large wing muscles or not?

I already pointed out that the albatross has the ability to flap its enormous wings — it is not limited to just jumping off a cliff like a hang glider. So how could it not have large wing muscles ?

Comment #70784

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 7:28 PM (e)

You ever seen footage of an Albatross take off Larry? and what point are you trying to make or have you forgotten:

Try starting here:

“Because I think the Albatross has huge wing muscles…….”

(I’m beginning to think that Monty Python didn’t actually, you know write their own scripts - and you know Larry would be about the right age: anyway that is my theory that belongs to me, which is fine, what I thought of……. (falls off stool again))

Comment #70790

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 7:41 PM (e)

I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list — allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #70793

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 7:44 PM (e)

And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #70797

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

not only are there flying snakes, Larry

Now that you mention it:

Notes on the Biology and Captive Care of the Flying Snakes (Chrysopelea). By Lenny Flank, Jr. Reptile and Amphibians Hobbyist magazine, July 1999, pages 28-32

They are very very not-friendly (and they are technically venomous), but the fliers are still one of the favorite snakes that I have ever kept.

Alas, I have never had the privilege of keeping any Rhacophorans.

Comment #70798

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

I already pointed out that the albatross has the ability to flap its enormous wings —- it is not limited to just jumping off a cliff like a hang glider. So how could it not have large wing muscles ?

so, are you saying you fail to understand the difference between supposition and fact, Larry (468)?

I asked you to do a very simple thing.

find out if indeed, albatross actually DO have large wing muscles.

you failed to do so.

so which is it larry (469)? do you fail to understand what supposition means, or do you understand it, but prefer to argue in the form of unsubstantiated suppositions?

can you not see the difference between the way you present your arguments, vs. the way we do?

we refer you to published facts and research, you return with unsubstantiated suppositions.

are you gettin’ the picture yet? are you continuing to be unclear on why we think you moronic?

*sigh*

ok, here’s a new question for you Larry (470):

What flavor are albatross?

Comment #70799

Posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 7:50 PM (e)

BlindLarry wrote:

So how could it not have large wing muscles ?

Intelligent design? (rimshot!)

Or isn’t your God bright enough to design this bird without large wing muscles?

Fact of the matter is they DON’T have large wing muscles. I’ve had an adult black albatross in the hand. They have puny pecs, too.

(in birds that are powerful flyers, it is primarily the pectoral muscles that do the work)

Here’s a fun experiment you can try at home: eat a chicken wing. Eat the breast from the same chicken. Which of the muscles would you describe as being “large”?

“But a chicken’s not a strong flyer!”

Repeat the experiment with a duck.

Comment #70801

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 12, 2006 7:52 PM (e)

Folks,

I have refrained from commenting for some time for the reason I gave for not commenting on another thread that had a feature in common with this one. I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures. I quoted the Talmudic dictum that guides my behavior in this regard and that still stands.

But let me say something to anyone listening out there with similar motives to debunk evolution. I understand where you are coming from. You believe (erroneously in my opinion) that the Bible contradicts evolution, or you think evolution diminishes the lofty uniqueness of humanity (image of God) by treating it as just another animal, or you think evolution encourages immorality by highlighting the seeming immorality of how life developed (survival of the fittest) or you subscribe to all of these.

But it is time to give up the game. We are endowed with superior intelligence in order that we put that gift to use. The evidence for the basic framework of evolution has in recent decades grown by leaps and bounds. I will not go over the details here yet again, anyone interested can surely get the facts quite easily these days. My background is in physics and philosophy, so I claim no great expertise in Biology. But the trend should be clear to all reasonable human beings. “Missing links” are repeatedly being filled in and genetics is adding its voice to support the ideas gleaned from the fossil record.

Instead, we need to more rigorously examine our objections in light of the concincing evidence. Recent works have demonstrated that a careful reading of the original Bible, as opposed to poor translations, has never conflicted with evolution. Perhaps this was not noticed up to now because there was no perceived need to look closely. And if one believes in God, one usually also believes in His transcendent wisdom and unfathomable will. The evolutionary path is the one He employed, for reasons best known to Him. If you cannot abide by this, you really don’t understand nor accept the God of the Bible.

That is not to say that we ought not speculate about God’s purpose or motivation. Here is a thought. Having been granted “dominion” over all creatures on earth and free will to do good or evil, which is the real and deeper meaning of being created in God’s image, we are also given reasons to be humble. We got here the same way all the other creatures got here, albeit somewhat later, and under the rubric of the same rules and processes. The reason humankind was originally prohibited from eating meat, the Talmudists tell us, is to convey just this message. By eating the same foodstuffs as many other creatures, our commonolity with them is highlighted. Don’t let the “dominion” get to your head, is God’s message, you need to earn it!

Comment #70804

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 7:58 PM (e)

I see no reason why the movie King Kong would have deviated from primatology, so I presume gorillas must really grow to be 50 feet tall and fall in love with human women.

I see no reason why the movie Jaws would have deviated from icthyology, so I presume that great white sharks attack people off Long Island all the time and are capable of seeking revenge (Jaws II).

I see no reason why the movie Birds would have deviated from ornithology, so I presume seagulls must sttack and kill hundreds of people a year.

I see no reason why the movie Fight Club would have deviated from reality, so I presume Brad Pitt and Ed Norton must have really blown up a bunch of skyscrapers in Los Angeles.

The truth about Fafafooey is contained in that little Jurassic Park nugget, though:

I see no reason

Comment #70805

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 8:00 PM (e)

Earth to Carol: WE DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. END OF STORY.

Comment #70808

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 8:02 PM (e)

But keep up with that “refrain from commenting” thing, it looks good on you.

Comment #70810

Posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 8:04 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

What flavor are albatross?

Probably tastes a lot like chicken …

Well, Mother Carey’s Chicken, anyway (a kind of petrel!)

Comment #70814

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures. I quoted the Talmudic dictum that guides my behavior in this regard and that still stands.

translate as:

“I’m BS’ing you with this excuse for why I refuse to acknowledge my logical inconsistencies in my arguments presented in this thread, and indeed, throughout my tenure as a poster on PT.”

thanks for the defense of evolution speech, Carol, but hate to say, I would far prefer you addressing the criticisms of your repeated presentation of the OT as “not in conflict with science” as opposed to your more narrow presentation of “not in conflict with evolution”.

or even, dare i say it? admitting that “not in conflict with science” was a gross overgeneralization on your part.

I think you COULD make an excellent case for the “not in conflict with ET” position, if you would care to rework your original postulation, and fix all your subsequent inconsistencies.

really, I don’t want you to feel I’m attacking you just to be attacking you, but you made some rather large postulations in this thread that when backed into a corner, you responded with some rather “unusual” statements, to say the least.

I would hope, for both your thinking process and the rest of us who bothered to take the time to engage you on this issue, that you would at least pick a clear position and clarify it.

thanks

Comment #70815

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 8:09 PM (e)

Carol, why, again, should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions?

Why, again, are your religious opinions any better than anyone else’s (other than your say-so)?

And why, again, is your opinion that the New Testament is full of crap, better than Heddle’s opinion that the New Testament is the Word of God?

Until you answer those simple questions, Carol, I have no interest in anything you say. (shrug)

Comment #70816

Posted by Louis on January 12, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

Off topic ish!

BRITS PROPOSING BEERS IN THE NATION’S FAIR CAPITAL (That’s Dean Morrison, Corkscrew et al.):

google for “skeptics in the pub” and I’ll see you there. Similarly,if you can tolerate another like minded beer drinker let me know. louis at heurema dot co dot uk is a decent way to get hold of me.

Oh and by the way you are all wrong. The sublimest beer in the land is Ringwood Fortyniner. As I shall hope to demonstrate to you gentlemen forthwith. If not fifthwith.

;-)

Comment #70817

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

‘STORM PETREL ON A STICK !!!!!!’

Comment #70818

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 8:11 PM (e)

I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures.

Hey Carol, look at who is standing next to you in that Big Tent.

Comment #70820

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Duly copied in Louis - Bring a Panda…

Comment #70821

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Probably tastes a lot like chicken …

bzzzz! while logically plausible, that is not the correct answer.

thanks for playing!

hint:

there are 2 correct answers to this question, assuming anybody has been following the tangential references some of us have been throwing at some of larry’s (471) proclamations.

shhh, audience, be quiet now! I’m hoping larry (472) will take a shot at answering himself.

Comment #70824

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:17 PM (e)

‘STORM PETREL ON A STICK !!!!!!’

splitter!

shhh!

Comment #70831

Posted by Julie on January 12, 2006 8:31 PM (e)

What flavor are albatross?

Bloody sea bloody bird bloody flavor! ( …. mmmmm, tastes like passenger pigeon!)

BTW, I’ll be glad to wash down the albatross with a brew on Darwin Day, although I’m one of those “wimps” who normally prefers wine to beer. (Of course, I wouldn’t be a man even if I drank ale daily!) Any suggestions from the other side of the pond for a good Darwin Day beverage that might be available in upstate New York? If it helps: I adhere to the motto, “Real women don’t drink light beer!”

Besides, Darwin was born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln. Also worth a toast.

Comment #70835

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

winner!

I would have also accepted just “albatross flavor” or “bloody albatross flavor”

well, i guess larry (473) had his chance.

oh well.

Comment #70837

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:41 PM (e)

http://www.cambridge-brewery.co.uk/id2.html

Darwins Downfall 5.0% ABV

Named in honour of Charles Darwin’s link with the University City, the beer has been tried by a descendant who said Darwin would have approved!
A blended ruby-golden coloured fruity flavour bitter with a tangy aftertaste.
Firkin: £110.86
20ltr Polypin: £65.93
10ltr Polypin: £36.97
12x500ml: £21.74

anybody know if they import this into the US?

Comment #70838

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 8:42 PM (e)

Monty Python humor would be utterly lost on Fafafooey. Have you ever seen him, in his trillions of words of posting, make anything like a joke or a pun? He’s way too wrapped up in his conception of himself as learned scholar, persuasive orator, and righteous crusader.

Comment #70841

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:46 PM (e)

hmm. it is interesting to note that, while Darwin’s love for beer was legendary, there are very few beers to actually carry his name.

Oh Lennnnyyyy!

I think there is a marketing opportunity here.

maybe you could put some effort into developing a true “Darwin Beer”?

Comment #70844

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 8:50 PM (e)

Monty Python humor would be utterly lost on Fafafooey

unfortunately, I suppose so would your reference, good as it is.

Larry (474) could prove me wrong, tho.

Larry (475), is there anything else you wanted to share with us about albatross?

Feel free to move on to your next presentation if not.

Comment #70849

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 9:02 PM (e)

Comment #70682 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 04:06 PM
Creationism is not taught as science in British public schools, even the religious ones. If you disagree with me please don’t respond here. Take it to After the Bar Closes.

I will respond here because this subject – unlike the Holocaust and Confederate flags – is on-topic.

See “Creationists taking over state schools,”
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm

Comment #70854

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

uh… Larry…

Creationists taking over state schools,”

compare and contrast to:

Creationism is not taught as science in British public schools, even the religious ones

care to tell me what the difference is between the UK and the US now?

i don’t see any difference, myself.

I see creationist idiots attempting to make illegal inroads in teaching their claptrap here in the US, and the link you provided suggests they are attempting the same in the UK.

what you HAVE done is indicate that folks like yourself are NOT just a US problem, but morons can be found anywhere in the world.

we, uh, already knew that, but thanks for pointing out nonetheless.

477.

Comment #70855

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

oh btw Larry (478), we are so far off topic on this thread, I don’t think anyone would mind you addressing any topic you choose to.

Comment #70860

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 9:26 PM (e)

Larry - I gave you that link - and if you look its three years out of date - it says so itself. The site has in fact moved to the British Humanist Association website - :

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1915

Since you won’t come over and continue the discussion where your bonkers ideas have been refuted - then you need to look there for the up-to date and accurate information.

If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they’re going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn. This has been explained to you before but you ran away from the thread. Its a reason why us Brits are helping our mates across the water defeat ID in the USA, so the stupid bloody idea doesn’t get pushed by American Bible Bashers over here.

Why won’t you tell me why your idea that albatrosses have muscley wings proves there is a god?

… and do you need stabilisers for your bike?

Comment #70862

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 9:27 PM (e)

and, Larry (479), I think you missed something that might have helped you see this a bit clearer in the link you provided:

All running costs of the so-called Academies are met by the Government but they are legally independent, privately owned by their trustees, and so have considerable freedom.

that make it clearer for you now?

Interestingly enough, this brings up the issue of why many of us are overwhelmingly opposed to the school voucher system as delineated and supported by the current administration and several similarly mentally hamstrung congressional representatives.

Many of us think it would lead to the kinds of things you linked to; essentially government sponsored obliteration of the very definition of science itself, even if not directly condoned, and the resultant complete breakdown of the seperation of church and state, that Jefferson himself (yes, the founding fathers were very much for the seperation clause), fought so hard for.

Comment #70866

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 9:30 PM (e)

Julie:

Any suggestions from the other side of the pond for a good Darwin Day beverage that might be available in upstate New York? If it helps: I adhere to the motto, “Real women don’t drink light beer!”

I always think a glass of Guinness looks damn sexy in the hand of a beautiful woman - all dark and mysterious like. We’ll make sure to toast your health young lady, and that of good old Abe as well….

Comment #70871

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Any suggestions from the other side of the pond for a good Darwin Day beverage that might be available in upstate New York? If it helps: I adhere to the motto, “Real women don’t drink light beer!”

Just come to my place, in Florida, and I’d be happy to ply you with … uh, I mean, provide you with … all the homebrewed Viking Piss you can drink. That’s Porter – no wimpy light beer. (big fat evil grin)

Comment #70874

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 9:48 PM (e)

Oh Lennnnyyyy!

I think there is a marketing opportunity here.

maybe you could put some effort into developing a true “Darwin Beer”?

Hmmmm … I think Anchor already beat me to it ….

Comment #70910

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 12:12 AM (e)

hmm. pace decreasing. gonna be hard to get this to 1000 posts before it drops off the front page.

new topic, anybody? larry’s given up spouting drivel in this thread and has moved to another one, at least temporarily.

does anybody have anything to add to Carol’s brief appearance and her change of definitions from:

the bible does not conflict with science

to

the bible does not conflict with evolutionary theory

??

Comment #70917

Posted by Chavez on January 13, 2006 12:56 AM (e)

How about green pigs?

From CNN:

“Taiwan, home to the world’s first transgenic glowing fish, has successfully bred fluorescent green pigs that researchers hope will boost the island’s stem cell research, a professor said.”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/12/taiwan.pig.reut/index.html

A first step towards green eggs and ham.

Comment #70926

Posted by UnMark on January 13, 2006 1:32 AM (e)

I had attempted to respond to Carol last night, but couldn’t find the link I was looking for before having to head to bed. Now I can’t remember the link I was looking for. :p I fear the moment for response is lost, particularly if she is now boycotting this thread. But since STJ suggested it, I’ll do so anyway. :o)

from post 70408

EvilBible.com is replete with so much silliness and ignorance, it is beneath me (I cannot speak for David) to dabble in it. I prefer to talk to intelligent and knowledgeable folk, such as those found on PT.

In my experience, EB is one of the more tame “religious rationalist” (or skeptics, if you prefer) forums around. I suspect your real issue is that its focus is contrary to your own narrow and inflexible POV.

I absolutely gaurantee that you cannot prove that God does not exist.

I completely agree! Note, however (post 70397) I didn’t say I could prove God DOES not exist - I said I can prove he CAN not exist. The proof is all in the definition, thinking logically about it, and avoiding the standard logical fallacies. God’s definig qualities, namely omnipotence and omniscience, are self-contradictory - paradoxical. Like a square circle or married bachelor, neither omnipotence nor omniscience can exist. Therefore, an entity that has those qualities cannot exist.

Though I, too, would rather like to see 1000 posts, I mean not to start any flame wars with my response, just to offer my proof.

First blue roses, then flourescent-green pigs. What will they think of next?!

Best regards!

Comment #70931

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 1:40 AM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 09:02 PM (e) (s)


I will respond here because this subject — unlike the Holocaust and Confederate flags — is on-topic…

YeeeeHaaa! Superb. ROFL

Larry, what is now the topic of this thread?
Please try and keep up.

Larry, please ask or assert anything you like on this thread.
A sort of mini-unofficial bathroom wall.

Comment #70934

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 1:44 AM (e)

designer humans, of course.

you’ll be able to pick the skin color and pattern of your kid, hair style and eye color, and any number of other minor adjustable attributes.

easy.

could be done right now; the technology has been available for 10 years.

remember the designer rabbits?

I’m sure it will be de riguer in a decade or so.

hey, I’d want my kid to glow in the dark so they would be easy to find at night :)

on a more philosophical note, i don’t doubt that genetic modification in humans will start a whole new debate about what it means to be “human”.

I personally look at it as the beginning of a whole new frontier.

ever read “Blood Music” by Greg Bear?

Comment #70949

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 3:17 AM (e)

hmm here’s an interesting tidbit:

http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html

seems a group of physicists has stumbled upon perhaps an entirely new metabolic pathway, apparently common in plants, that produces methane even under oxygenated conditions.

If correct, and there is every evidence it is, the discovery of an entirely new metabolic pathway, and even one of apparently high significance, is big news indeed!

Perhaps the biggest discovery in ecological physiology since the discovery of entire ecologies based on reduction reactions (the vent animals).

I can’t get to the original reference, but it’s in the current volume of Nature if anybody has a subscription.

Comment #70950

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 13, 2006 3:17 AM (e)

In the name to smash 1000. If nothing else I may a snarky remark from Rev. Dr.

God’s definig qualities, namely omnipotence and omniscience, are self-contradictory - paradoxical. Like a square circle or married bachelor, neither omnipotence nor omniscience can exist. Therefore, an entity that has those qualities cannot exist.

“Omni” is a term that needs to be more clearly defined, but does not necessarily preclude entities described by the term. I mean, most theist would concede that they mean omnipotence rougly equal to uberpotence, or the most powerful. Of course in that sense “ultimate” needs to be more clearly defined too.

However, I always find the standard theist response of “god has a reason that man can not guess” (as Carol has used) for all absurdities in the world profoundly unsatisfactory. The same theists have no problem *assuming* (since man cannot guess god) god’s purpose when it comes to the good in the world. To me that is hypocrisy to the highest degree.

I think a god can/may exist, but if he does, he would not be the being any religion in the world have ever described to any sort of accuracy. i.e. Einstein’s god. I don’t think it exists, such a god is not necessary, not inferred, but I cannot disprove his existence.

Comment #70955

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 13, 2006 3:55 AM (e)

Comment #70860 posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 09:26 PM

Larry - I gave you that link - and if you look its three years out of date - it says so itself.

Just below the title “Creationists taking over state schools” is the note, “Minor Update 25 July 2005,” less than 6 months ago. I presume that a government threat to deny funds to schools teaching creationism as science did not exist at that time, because otherwise the article would probably note it. See –http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm

If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they’re going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn.

Can you prove it? What does your British Humanist Association website say about that?

Scary Larry

============================================
“I’m from Missouri. You’ll have to show me.” —- Willard Duncan Vandiver

Comment #70956

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 4:14 AM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 13, 2006 03:55 AM (e) (s)


Just below the title “Creationists taking over state schools” is the note, “Minor Update 25 July 2005,” less than 6 months ago. I presume that a government threat to deny funds to schools teaching creationism as science did not exist at that time, because otherwise the article would probably note it…

The strange thing is Larry, that you may be correct.

It is entirely possible (but dubious) that the UK has no law forbidding religion from being taught in science classes.
Up until recently there has never been a need.

I am hoping if the UK has to deal with this nonsense, we will react far firmer than the USA.

At least we already have the evidence of how dishonest the whole ID movement is. Anti ID people UK will no doubt benefit from the prior labours the PT folk.

I can’t see the British public reacting too well to ID. Especially when there is so much evidence of how corrupt it is.

Hopefully our media will do a much better job than yours (though I don’t hold out too much faith).

It might backfire on you personally Larry. If this starts up in the UK I guarantee their will be many more of us pesky “Britishers” to annoy you.

Comment #70959

Posted by Alan Fox on January 13, 2006 5:33 AM (e)

If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they’re going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn.

Can you prove it? What does your British Humanist Association website say about that?

Scary Larry

The UK education system has a National Curriculum with regular school inspections. The ultimate sanction fo a “failing” school is closure.

Comment #70963

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 6:11 AM (e)

Just below the title “Creationists taking over state schools” is the note, “Minor Update 25 July 2005,” less than 6 months ago.

- yep - reminding people that for the past few years the site has been part of the British Humanist Association site. Look it up yourself Larry - I’m not going to play ‘fetch’ like the nice Lady at the Library.

You had all the responses you asked for at the other thread - Although it would be an easy way to inflate the post count to cut and paste the entire dialogue on this one - just to save you the effort of clicking HERE this would be a stupid waste of webspace.

(Larry isn’t correct by the way Steve - all schools have to teach the National Curriculum (by law) which means evolution for science - the suspicion is that a few schools run by Muslims, Exclusive Brethren, and Evangelical Fundies, break the law when no-one is looking. That’s why we should be on our guard. On the other hand ‘faith schools’ have had troubles attracting staff for years, and the problem is getting worse for them - so fears of their expansion may be exaggerated.)

I’m bored with the ‘British School’ stuff anyway - further reference by anyone will only get a direction to the original thread from me. I’ll happily pick things up there if Larry uses his legal eagle brain to respond to the posts that have been waiting for him for a week.

How about meteoroids? Is the reason you have funny ideas about them because you think that the Sun moves around the Earth Larry? - just like it says in the Bible? Do you think that schools should ‘teach the controversy’ about the Solar System?

Comment #70964

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 6:39 AM (e)

Hi Dean,
I was aware of the national curriculum. What I am uncertain of though is whether we actually have a law that specifically forbids mentioning religion in science classes. I will check later on when I get home ( in work atm). We are technically a theocracy after all (although about as dilute as that can get).

I am pretty sure a state school attempting what the ID movement want would be disciplined PDQ. Just not certain it is actually illegal rather than unprofessional or unethical.

Comment #70965

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 6:45 AM (e)

If you look on the other thread I explain how it works there Steve. In simple terms if a school wilfully disregards the National Curriculum, then OFSTED find out, and funding can be pulled so the school closes down.
We have to remain alert though.

Comment #70967

Posted by Alan Fox on January 13, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

I’m bored with the ‘British School’ stuff anyway

What about warm-bloodedness in the Great White Shark being another example of evolution in action.

Comment #70969

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 7:02 AM (e)

Tickets are selling out for the Dawkins Darwin Day thing - If I don’t hear from anyone ( by 2.00pm GMT) to tell me they’ve already got a ticket then I’ get four.

Any other Brits who want to join us need to get a move on!

Comment #70971

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 7:08 AM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 07:02 AM (e) (s)

Tickets are selling out for the Dawkins Darwin Day thing - If I don’t hear from anyone ( by 2.00pm GMT) to tell me they’ve already got a ticket then I’ get four.

Damn good idea!
Saves us being spread all over the venue, without the logistical problem of trying to organise a synchronised phone-in.

Comment #70976

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 13, 2006 8:03 AM (e)

If nothing else I may a snarky remark from Rev. Dr.

Why? Perhaps you were not listening earlier when I said, repeatedly, that I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, or goddesses — they are all, without exception, human inventions, and none of them, absolutely none of them at all whatsoever, actually exist.

Did you catch that this time, or will I need to repeat it, yet again, sometime in the near future?

(sigh)

I think a god can/may exist, but if he does, he would not be the being any religion in the world have ever described to any sort of accuracy

Well, I think Zen describes it quite accurately: “Vast emptiness, and nothing holy in it”.

Comment #70977

Posted by guthrie on January 13, 2006 8:05 AM (e)

Well, this foundation school junk really gets on my wick. Here in the UK, we have a gvt that is trying to privatise evrything it can. What this means is that for the paltry dontation of 2 million quid, a private donor gets something like 20 million from the taxpayer to build the new school, then gets pretty much total rights to dictate who teaches what. Now, I have not read the guidelines, but it seems that they dont have to faithfully follow the same national curriculum that everyone else does. Moreover, foundation schools are permitted to exclude whom they want from schools. Normal council schools have to put up with badly behaved children, but the foundation schools can get rid of them. Guess which ones will come out smelling of roses?

I think larry probably is correct, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for creationism being taught in these schools. However, it will take a good bit of digging to find out the truth, and the problem is that these schools are politically protected. (Yes, that sounds extreme, but I see no reason to think otherwise.)

Comment #70981

Posted by Tim Hague on January 13, 2006 8:26 AM (e)

Sir TJ:

“on a more philosophical note, i don’t doubt that genetic modification in humans will start a whole new debate about what it means to be “human”.”

I don’t doubt that for a minute either. I also postulate that any suggestion of genetic modification in humans will not go down at all well with the fundies! If only repeated mentions of it would cause spontaneous combustion… ;)

Comment #71004

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 9:23 AM (e)

Guthrie -

any chance that you might want to join us for a beer in London on 13th Feb?

The foundation school stuff gets on my wick too - They are required to teach the National Curriculum though (they are allowed more freedom in forming lesson plans and schemes of work - although this is becoming more generally true anyway) - which is why we have to be alert. Hopefully the new white paper about to go through parliament will be de-railed by the Ruth Kelly/Paedophile teacher thing - and the whole thing will blow up in Blairs face to the extent that Blair will make way for Brown. Most of the population are against more faith schools, especially after the London Bombings, so they are vote loser. They have even more problems than ordinary schools in attracting qualified teachers - so how are they going to expand? used car salesmen or not?
We have to be on our guard - a topic for our pub conversation perhaps?

If you need to catch up on the topic check out the original thread here.

Anyway I feel that we are bing rude to our American hosts with this parochial talk -what the hell was Larry on about again?

Oh yes - Larry? does the Earth go around the Sun? or is it the other way around like it says in the Bible?

Comment #71020

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 9:53 AM (e)

anonymous Beer drinker wrote:

BRITS PROPOSING BEERS IN THE NATION’S FAIR CAPITAL

The most, ah, unique Beer I’ve had is “Old Peculiar”. It came in 10 oz bottles. Interesting flavor, pretty good IMO. But 10 oz is about all I’d care to drink at a time.

Comment #71021

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 10:01 AM (e)

Four Tickets duly booked lads!

Any Brits - especially Northerners who don’t want to venture down that far Siuth might be interested to know that Nick Matze is coming to talk in Birmingham for Darwin Day on the 10th Feb. Followed by a ‘Reggae’ version of ‘Origin of the Species’ I kid you not…

Friday 10 February, Birmingham, 09.00 – 17.00 hours
Darwin Day conference
Keynote Speaker: Dr Nick Matze (NCSE, USA)
“News from the Panda Tria in Dover, Pennsylvania: The Evolutionary Origin of Intelligent Design”
Birmingham Medical Institute, 36 Harborne Road,
Birmingham B15 3AF

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=379

Comment #71035

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

Ah yes - Theakstons Old Peculiar - a couple of pints of that and I’d be inclined to agree with Larry that the Sun spins around the Earth ( or would that be the Earth spinning around my head?).

Comment #71055

Posted by Tim Hague on January 13, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

Off topic, but an interesting story (and we still haven’t hit 1000 yet!)

I once met a chap who was the most irritating person I have ever met (not, it’s not Larry!). He was - in his own opinion - an absolute expert in everything. It didn’t matter what the subject matter was, as soon as someone started a conversation about it it would be ‘Ah yes. Artificial Intelligence. Blah blah blah.’ The ‘blah blah blah’ bit was the irritating bit - because it would very rapidly become clear that no matter what the subject matter was, he had little or no idea about what he was talking about. Even more irritating was that after three or more hours of patient argument and explanation from experts in the field (this was tested repeatedly with different subjects) he still would not concede a single point in the argument or admit that he didn’t know anything about it.

This saga came to and end after around six months of increasing frustration when we eventually found out this amazing source of knowledge. This is a direct quote: “I know what it isn’t, therefore I know what it is”.

And no, I’m not kidding.

A few more patient explanations followed: “Let’s take this table for example. We know it isn’t a fridge. We know it isn’t a jumbo jet. We know it isn’t a walrus. Are we any closer to what it is? No.”

He didn’t get it. He never got it. There appeared to be a special black hole that followed him around everywhere and bent logic around him (this is a hypothesis only, I have no supporting data ;) ).

At this point we stopped talking to him, because we realised it was just not worth the effort.

Comment #71064

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 09:53 AM (e) (s)


The most, ah, unique Beer I’ve had is “Old Peculiar”. It came in 10 oz bottles. Interesting flavor, pretty good IMO. But 10 oz is about all I’d care to drink at a time.

Ahhhh! Old Peculiar. A damn good drink, but takes a little to get used to.

Got no idea what 10 oz is though. Back in C. 1986. A few mates and myself used to drink it regularly in a real ale pub, on the hill overlooking Caterick garrison in Yorkshire. There it was sold by the pint.

Anyway after about 8 months we were able to get through about 8-10 pints of the stuff.

One day they had “Marstons Owd Roger” in as a guest beer. 4 pints and the landlord had to call us a taxi and “pour” us out the backdoor (it was well after official closing time) into it.

Powerfull stuff “Owd Roger”. Tastes very similar to “Old Peculiar” slightly sweeter, much stronger.

Post count +1

Comment #71072

Posted by UnMark on January 13, 2006 11:44 AM (e)

Tim, would this chap happen to be President George W. Bush?

Eugene (post 70950): personal definitions of words only leads to confusion and ignorance, IMO. Omni means, essentially, infinity, which is a purely fictional construct. Moreover, placing limits on God, in many (most?) Christian circles, would get you well-charred - I’m sure a certain toasty location to spend eternity would be mentioned….

I didn’t even mentioned the proofs regarding God’s benevolence quality (or lack of it), particularly when coupled with the “omni” attributes I mentioned above.

Comment #71099

Posted by Tim Hague on January 13, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

UnMark - no. I’ve not met Bush and I doubt I’m likely to. But I like your thinking!

Comment #71104

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

Stephen Elliot,

10 oz is = 5/8 pint.

It was not the alcohol content that limited me to 10 oz of Old Peculiar. It was the richness/sweetness/intensity of the flavor of the drink.

Kind of like not wanting to get drunk on eggnog + rum.

I similarly enjoy Guinness Stout but only up to ~2 pints. The flavor gets too rich for me after that.

Besides, I’m not so much of a beer person. When I drink, I typically drink my own homemade mead.

I don’t make batches frequently enough to standardize my recipes, so my meads range from insipidly sweet to bone parchingly dry. All of it is pretty potent. The alcohol content ranges from ~12% alcohol to over 20%. Regardless of the actual alcohol content, it always tastes much less alcoholic than it actually is :) .

I’m currently aging pomegranate, apple cider, & chocolate meads. I actually should rack them off this weekend. After that the chocolate and apple cider are probably good to drink. I expect the pomegranate will need another 3-6 months.

If I was single, it’d be a great way to meet women!

Comment #71115

Posted by Alan Fox on January 13, 2006 12:22 PM (e)

If you ever come across it, I can thoroughly recommend Enville Ale which regularly appeared as a guest beer at my old local.

Never heard of “Owd Roger”, but Marston’s Pedigree is excellent where the cellar care is good. I remember a pub near where I used to live (70’s) with a clientele that seemed to be almost exclusively building workers. There was one beer pump in the bar and they only served Marston’s Pedigree. On a Sunday lunchtime, that pump was in constant motion, and the beer was nectar. I have often been sorely disappointed since.

Comment #71120

Posted by AC on January 13, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

Welcome to KLRY, where people come for an argument, but end up only getting contradiction.

Carol wrote:

But let me say something to anyone listening out there with similar motives to debunk evolution. I understand where you are coming from. You believe (erroneously in my opinion) that the Bible contradicts evolution, or you think evolution diminishes the lofty uniqueness of humanity (image of God) by treating it as just another animal, or you think evolution encourages immorality by highlighting the seeming immorality of how life developed (survival of the fittest) or you subscribe to all of these.

We can argue all we want about biblical accuracy regarding science for sport*, but these are certainly incorrect beliefs that many people hold. Scientists are quick to point out that they are incorrect, and why. People just don’t tend to listen, for various reasons. If they would more readily listen to their religious authorities, then I would be delighted to hear those authorities make the same points. Eventually they might stop living in fear and ignorance, at least where evolution is concerned.

* Not to say without seriousness, but simply that the bible is irrelevant to the practice of science.

Comment #71125

Posted by Jim Harrison on January 13, 2006 12:34 PM (e)

In the interest of getting to a 1000:

It bears repeating that it is perfectly possible to prove a negative. For example, consider the following atheistical proof:

If God is defined as the supreme being where supreme means largest prime number, then we know there is no God since there is no largest prime–detailed proof in Euclid’s Elements.

Of course there aren’t too many folks who define God as the largest prime number; but, fact is, there aren’t too many folks who are willing to define God at all since what they are seeking has only a distant analogy to knowledge. Which is frustrating to the tiny minority for whom all that matters is figuring things out. A moving target we might be able to hit in a virtuoso display of metaphysical skeet shooting, but you can’t lead a clay pigeon that isn’t even there.

Comment #71126

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 12:36 PM (e)

Alan,

Reminds me of some behavior here in the States…

I’m a consultant and spend ~1 year at various customer sites helping them with my companies product.

Anyway, one company’s (not my current one) workers had an unofficial ritual of going out to a bar for a few drinks and lunch on Fridays. That company’s management got wind of this and decided that they didn’t want to expose the company to a lawsuit if one of its workers got into an accident while driving or at work.

So they made a company policy that said workers could not return to work if they had anything to drink at lunch.

Now the workers don’t go back to work after lunch on Fridays. :)

I don’t think management counted on that reaction!

Comment #71142

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 13, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

Dean,

I don’t know where you think you are headed with that question you have repeated a few times regarding the sun going around the earth or vise-versa. But you ought to know that the Bible makes no comment on the matter either way. And with the earth as your frame of reference, the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.

Comment #71152

Posted by Alan Fox on January 13, 2006 12:55 PM (e)

Thanks Carol for 655 :)

Comment #71154

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 12:36 PM (e) (s)

Alan,

Reminds me of some behavior here in the States…

I’m a consultant and spend ~1 year at various customer sites helping them with my companies product.

Anyway, one company’s (not my current one) workers had an unofficial ritual of going out to a bar for a few drinks and lunch on Fridays. That company’s management got wind of this and decided that they didn’t want to expose the company to a lawsuit if one of its workers got into an accident while driving or at work.

So they made a company policy that said workers could not return to work if they had anything to drink at lunch.

Now the workers don’t go back to work after lunch on Fridays. :)

I don’t think management counted on that reaction!

LOL. Good for the workers!

Comment #71157

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 13, 2006 1:01 PM (e)

AC,

I cannot agree with you that “scientists are quick to point out that they are incorrect, and why. People just don’t tend to listen, for various reasons.”

Scientists not only do not make the points you indicated, they frequently emphasize just the opposite. They insist that the Bible is in conflict with science (one look at this blog should confirm that) and they insist that humans are just another form of animal. And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

Comment #71159

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 1:06 PM (e)

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 12:08 PM (e) (s)

Stephen Elliot,

10 oz is = 5/8 pint.

It was not the alcohol content that limited me to 10 oz of Old Peculiar. It was the richness/sweetness/intensity of the flavor of the drink.

Kind of like not wanting to get drunk on eggnog + rum.

I similarly enjoy Guinness Stout but only up to ~2 pints. The flavor gets too rich for me after that.

Besides, I’m not so much of a beer person. When I drink, I typically drink my own homemade mead.

I don’t make batches frequently enough to standardize my recipes, so my meads range from insipidly sweet to bone parchingly dry. All of it is pretty potent. The alcohol content ranges from ~12% alcohol to over 20%. Regardless of the actual alcohol content, it always tastes much less alcoholic than it actually is :) .

I’m currently aging pomegranate, apple cider, & chocolate meads. I actually should rack them off this weekend. After that the chocolate and apple cider are probably good to drink. I expect the pomegranate will need another 3-6 months.

If I was single, it’d be a great way to meet women!

Over 20% ABV? You might have a world record if that is true. Assuming you only use fermentation.

I used to brew as well. I would use brewers yeast to about 10% ABV. Then switch to a wine yeast. I would slowly (as in adding the sugar), get it till the yeast stopped fermanting.

Then skim off the yeast (slimy bits) for my next brew. I kept getting it a little stronger. I think my record was 18-19% ABV. Took a while to get there though.

Post count +1 C’Mon 1K. (this page starting to take ages to load now)

=====================================================================
I am from Wigan…..You will need to ply me with a pie and a pint!

Comment #71163

Posted by gregonomic on January 13, 2006 1:11 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

[Groan] I should know better, but I will ask you Carol: what exactly are “the implications of evolution for morality”? And why should “the scientific community” necessarily have anything to say about it?

Comment #71168

Posted by Ubernatural on January 13, 2006 1:17 PM (e)

You might have a world record if that is true.

Ahem. Sam Adams highly evolved yeast beer. *cough* 25.6% ABV *cough*

Comment #71177

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 1:26 PM (e)

Posted by Ubernatural on January 13, 2006 01:17 PM (e) (s)

Sam Adams highly evolved yeast beer. *cough* 25.6% ABV *cough*

Are you certain that is only by fermentation? Port is only 20% and that is not done by just fermentation. It is augmented by adding distilled alcohol. Known as “fortifying”.

Comment #71183

Posted by CJ O'Brien on January 13, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

I don’t know where you think you are headed with that question you have repeated a few times regarding the sun going around the earth or vise-versa. But you ought to know that the Bible makes no comment on the matter either way. And with the earth as your frame of reference, the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.

But “frame of reference” would seem to beg the question.
If your frame of reference is a premodern tribal society, you’re going to invent a mythology that reinforces superstitious beliefs in miracles, prophets and “chosen peoples.”

Why your War God would take any pains to make sure his revelations to his chosen people were consistent with a modern, empirical “frame of reference” is beyond me.

It all sounds like so much pleading.

Comment #71185

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 13, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

Gregonomic,

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior. Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying “it’s a dog eat dog world out there”, can now say “it’s a survival of the fittest world out there.” It seems to be saying that it is nature’s way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

Comment #71193

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 13, 2006 1:47 PM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 13, 2006 01:40 PM (e) (s)

Gregonomic,

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior. Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying “it’s a dog eat dog world out there”, can now say “it’s a survival of the fittest world out there.” It seems to be saying that it is nature’s way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

People have done the exact same thing claiming “God told me so”.

Comment #71195

Posted by Rkootknir on January 13, 2006 1:49 PM (e)

OK, in the interest of getting this thread to 1000 replies I’ll delurk.

I’m from South Africa (I think Renier is as well?) and I come up against a lot of these ID\Creationist discussions with my friends. I’m a science junky and I always try to defend the scientific viewpoint, but I’m not all that knowledgable on biology, so…

Thanks to people like Lenny, STJ and all the others who always provide me with ways of showing how stupid ID\Creationism is.

Comment #71198

Posted by Ubernatural on January 13, 2006 1:53 PM (e)

That’s what they say, Arden. I can’t find anything on the web about the process, but what I saw on the History Channel was Jim Koch talking about how they bred a yeast specifically to survive high alcohol percentages, so that they could use the traditional means of making beer to make a new kind of beer that was previously impossible. The ABV of the new beer, Utopias, has been steadily increasing every year. Who knows what new limit they might find!

Comment #71204

Posted by Rkootknir on January 13, 2006 2:04 PM (e)

BTW, did I get post 666? If so:

Excccceleeeeeent /rubs antennae gleefully

Comment #71206

Posted by gregonomic on January 13, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior.

And I would say these people are ignorant about evolution, are paranoid, and/or have an anti-evolution agenda.

Evolution (the fact) is amoral - it isn’t capable of caring what happens to the organisms it generates.

Evolutionary theory might tell us something about how social interactions between animals might affect their reproductive success in the face of natural (and other kinds of) selection (so-called “survival of the fittest”). It might even tell us something about why humans treat each other the way they do, but I’m no expert in that field.

Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying “it’s a dog eat dog world out there”, can now say “it’s a survival of the fittest world out there.”

Ah, you’re living in a dream world Carol. Criminals, the kind who attack old ladies, are usually poor and/or hungry and/or in other desparate situations. They don’t usually commit crimes because they want to, but because they have to. They possess, after all, the same survival instincts that we, and all other animals, do.

It seems to be saying that it is nature’s way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

Well, yes, but “nature”, in terms of human societies, is pretty complex. “Nature” has a way of (temporarily, at least) reducing the reproductive success of people who commit violent crimes - you might know it as “prison”.

Comment #71211

Posted by yorktank on January 13, 2006 2:15 PM (e)

An HTML document of 1MB? You know what’s funny is that I’ve only encountered that before on a crank website…
Anyway, that’s my contribution to reaching 1,000.

Comment #71225

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 2:34 PM (e)

Stephen Elliot wrote:

Are you certain that is only by fermentation? Port is only 20% and that is not done by just fermentation. It is augmented by adding distilled alcohol. Known as “fortifying”.

You can buy “standard” yeasts for home wine, mead, & beer making.

Since I haven’t done any beer yet, I’m not that familiar with those yeasts.

Typical wine yeasts are good to 12%-15%.
Champaign yeasts are good to 18%.
Certain specific wine yeasts are good to ~20% (I used one of these).
There is also a new yeast good to >22% or maybe a little more.

Although I own a hygrometer, I didn’t measure my batch of *very highly alcoholic mead* (aka “Cheap Date”) so I’m not certain of how alcoholic it really was. However, I used 25 lbs of honey in a 6 gal carboy. The end product was very dry (it wasn’t sweet at all), so it used up all or nearly all of the sugar.

1 glass this mead got me feeling like 2 glasses of my usual stuff. Thus my estimate of ~20% or a little more alcohol.

Comment #71235

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 13, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

Well, in the interest of getting to the magic number, this is kind of cool, too:

Ants help each other as teachers and pupils:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10806078/.

This ain’t bad (maybe Oh Carol can even identify the women for us):

Millions of Jews traced to four women>:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10827385/.

And then there’s the one about the Tuang Boy having been killed by an aerial raptor (admittedly, Larry, the wing muscles on these babies must have been pretty hefty, so watch your twelve, dude!). Ah, here it is:

Were human ancestors hunted by evolved dinos birds?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10819471/.

I’m still looking for a study that suggests those early cyanobacteria and photosynthesizing microbial mats may all have been anoxic.

Comment #71263

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

Hey Carol!

Uh, Oh! look out! Larry the revisionist is still lurking about! ?Are you sure it’s safe for you to post?

*snicker*

I cannot agree with you that “scientists are quick to point out that they are incorrect, and why. People just don’t tend to listen, for various reasons.”

Ever consider that the “people just don’t tend to listen” part might be a not-so-subtle poke at yourself?

Scientists not only do not make the points you indicated, they frequently emphasize just the opposite. They insist that the Bible is in conflict with science (one look at this blog should confirm that) and they insist that humans are just another form of animal.

Carol your inconsistencies are becoming exponential in nature. You are becoming a grand source of humor, now that Larry has been temporarily absent.

YOU were the one who claimed the bible was inerant, and not in conflict with science in general. When proven exactly how incorrect that statement was, you simply ran away. when you came back for your little drive-by yesterday, you backpeddaled and stated that the bible did not conflict with evolutionary theory.

now today, you state:

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior. Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying “it’s a dog eat dog world out there”, can now say “it’s a survival of the fittest world out there.” It seems to be saying that it is nature’s way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

Thus implying that something to do with evolutionary theory itself, rather than icorrect interpretation and deliberate misaplication in the form more commonly known historically as “Social Darwinism”.

Does your confusion know no bounds, Carol?

You really should stop for a while and re-examine how you are examining these issues, and rationalizing your thought processes.

The inconsistencies and confusions rampant throughout your posts, not only in this thread, but in just about EVERY thread you have ever posted in on PT highly suggest you take some time to come to a position you can state without contradiction.

In other words; pick a position, understand what it actually IS, and stick to it.

The above quote shows how little you actually understand about what science is and what evolutionary theory is, and what the legitimate applications of it are.

Again, i find it highly unlikely that any time you spent as a science advisor was well spent.

that And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

This is the only correct thing you have said today.

Science is, and should be, neutral wrt the implications of its theories and observations.

That’s not the job of science itself.

Now a scientist is also a human being, and belongs to a community. Outside of science, as a member of a community, a scientist is certainly qualified to comment on what they see as any potential moral implications, of their own research as well as others, as are the rest of the members of said community. the scientist is no more qualified to comment on the morality of how science is USED than your local pizza delivery boy.

likewise, YOU are no more qualified to postulate on the merits of scientific endeavor based on potential subjective moral implications, than said pizza delivery boy.

Science can and should proceed without regard to subjective and inapplicable moral interpretations of the results of said research.

the community at large can decide what to do with the results of said reseach, in light of not only whatever moral implications are involved, but economic, social, and political as well.

my key point to you though, Carol, is that your rampant logical inconsistencies suggest a severe schism in your thoughts on these issues.

I think you are intelligent, but you need to take a few and rethink your positions and rationalizations.

Very much like heddle; which is probably why Lenny always puts the two of you together in his “questionaire”.

Comment #71276

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 3:22 PM (e)

hmmm. no comments about this at all?

http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html

thought that would at least raise a couple of eyebrows.

isn’t there anybody going to take the Rush Limbaugh oxycontin postion that this means that global warming is caused by trees?

c’mon!

Comment #71283

Posted by MP on January 13, 2006 3:27 PM (e)

All the talk of good beer is making me lament living in a wine-friendly region.
For all you Brits (and anyone else that likes a good beer), have you ever tried an ale called Old Engine Oil (or Old Engine Oil Special Reserve) out of Scotland? It can be terribly hard to find in the U.S., but certainly worth it. It’s a dark ale (very dark, hence the name), and the special reserve is aged in whiskey casks. S.R. is far and away my favorite dark beer; more interesting flavor than Guinness I think. I’d like to know what some veteran beer drinkers think of it.

Onward to 1000…

Comment #71299

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on January 13, 2006 3:54 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam (to Carol):

the scientist is no more qualified to comment on the morality of how science is USED than your local pizza delivery boy.

Just to clarify: I am not Carol’s PDG. I do not deliver to neverneverland (I did try once, when I was younger and less cynical; not only did I not get where I was trying to go, but I was lucky to get back to Terra Firma–but that’s another story).

This is not to say that PDGs are boycotting Carol (at least not yet). Even the deluded still deserve to eat wholesome food.

In this regard, I have it from a reliable source that several PDGs in LaLaLand have even delivered pizza to Larry‘s address (though apparently payment was made using his father’s credit card…).

Some hope still remains that these knuckleheads will renounce their erroneous ways and enter into the light* of Pastafarianism.

*Note that, in Pastafarianism, “light” is not the same as “Lite.”

Comment #71306

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 4:02 PM (e)

*shudder* lite pasta - ewwww.

You take that back. I don’t want that image stuck in my head for the rest of the evening.

Luckily my wife made chili for us tonight. I’m hoping to get some nice garlic bread to go with it.

Comment #71313

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 4:08 PM (e)

Would Lite Pastafarianism be concordant with the Atkins diet?

Comment #71315

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 13, 2006 4:09 PM (e)

gregonomic,

I was using “the little old ladies” expression in the preverbial sense, referring to the hapless victim in general. If you think crime in the USA is perpetrated solely by those who need to engage in such activity in order to survive, you have lost all touch with reality.

I recall an interview on TV some time ago with a confessed member of the Mafia, who readily admitted to having killed dozens of people. When asked how he could live with himself, he merely shrugged his shoulders and argued that it’s nature’s way that the fittest survive. Having the gun at the ready, being willing to use it, having the guts to aggressively fight for his interests, he argued, place him among “the fittest”.

Keep in mind that these ideas about evolution were not stated as my ideas. I certainly don’t subscribe to them. But they are out there.

Comment #71321

Posted by gregonomic on January 13, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

carol Clouser wrote:

I recall an interview on TV some time ago with a confessed member of the Mafia, who readily admitted to having killed dozens of people. When asked how he could live with himself, he merely shrugged his shoulders and argued that it’s nature’s way that the fittest survive. Having the gun at the ready, being willing to use it, having the guts to aggressively fight for his interests, he argued, place him among “the fittest”.

And you think this guy had a thorough understanding of the theory of evolution? You don’t think a little more education might not have prevented him from saying these things? Or other people from believing him when he did say it?

Comment #71322

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

Keep in mind that these ideas about evolution were not stated as my ideas. I certainly don’t subscribe to them. But they are out there.

like i said, misintrepations and abuses of theory are just excuses, Carol. simply artificial constructs put in place to deflect accountability.

Kind of like saying you refuse to post because there are “revisionists” in the audience.

I keep wondering when, in all of your posts, you will make an interesting and not contradictory point.

Or even address previous inconsistencies?

naw, I think that’s probably too much to ask of you.

I’m finding you to be far less interesting that Larry. At least his trollish posts serve to provide us with some humor.

Comment #71323

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 13, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

Oh Carol‘s comments are as content-free as ever, but it’s downright neighborly of her to lend a hand toward our effort to get to 1,000!

Now if only Larry the Maroon would stop wasting his our time over on the legal eagles thread and haul his blather back over here where it belongs…!

We’re well past two-thirds, folks! C’mon, Heddle, where are you when we could really use you (hmmm, I wonder if it would be “legal” to just copy a few of Heddle’s comments from other threads?– they’re all the same anyway…)?

Comment #71328

Posted by AC on January 13, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

Sir TJ, I think Carol has simply taken The Pledge™.

Carol wrote:

Scientists not only do not make the points you indicated, they frequently emphasize just the opposite. They insist that the Bible is in conflict with science (one look at this blog should confirm that) and they insist that humans are just another form of animal. And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

I think what one look at this blog confirms is that many people recognize that science is indeed in conflict with what is commonly understood as “the bible”. I am not particularly interested in any religious tradition, but if modern translations are inaccurate, then that’s obviously a disservice to believers, but it’s also their problem. What I will say is that, for most American fundies, the religion is a form of Protestant Christianity and the bible is the KJV. Hell, most of them don’t even know what language the OT was originally written in. I won’t even get into the irony of the antisemitic ones.

Also, scientists don’t “insist” that humans are animals. We just are. That fact has no inherent moral implications, nor does natural selection (“survival of the fittest”). Any implications people ascribe to anything can (and are) reviewed by society according to its norms, laws, etc. We don’t accept “God told me to kill him” when trying killers, nor do we accept “survival of the fittest”. Incidentally, that very concept is hilarious. People who rob and kill little old ladies aren’t trying to survive. A gazelle running from a cheetah is trying to survive.

This reminds me of red-state fundies insisting things such as that abstinence-only sex education leads to less promiscuous kids. The statistics, however, show this not only to be wrong, but the exact opposite! Mind you, I’m not saying that learning evolution makes people model citizens. But the idea that it makes them more likely to kill indiscriminately, by giving them an excuse, is just another instance of a long-debunked assertion. I find that people act for one set of reasons - sometimes reasons they don’t even recognize - and then adopt excuses after the fact. Reducing the number of excuses (adopted or perceived) doesn’t address those true motivations. And religion is not the only (or necessarily best) way to do that.

Comment #71334

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

(hmmm, I wonder if it would be “legal” to just copy a few of Heddle’s comments from other threads?— they’re all the same anyway…)?

are you implying we need to set some rules?

hmm. I’m not going to step on Pim’s toes on this one. Write to Pim, tell him what we are trying to do, and ask him if he wants to set any rules on it.

It is, after all, his thread.

Comment #71343

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 4:47 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #71348

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 4:52 PM (e)

Sir TJ, I think Carol has simply taken The Pledge™.

hmm. i disagree.

please refer back to the post she made yesterday as an excuse as to why she wasn’t bothering to respond (to earlier criticisms of her primary postulate in this thread):

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 12, 2006 07:52 PM (e) (s)

Folks,

I have refrained from commenting for some time for the reason I gave for not commenting on another thread that had a feature in common with this one. I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures. I quoted the Talmudic dictum that guides my behavior in this regard and that still stands.

can you trace back where there was a hollocaust revisionist or denier that addressed Carol’s primary thesis of the bible being consistent with science?

I sure can’t

what conclusion do we draw from this then?

Comment #71358

Posted by ben on January 13, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

It is, after all, his thread.

I thought it was Larry Fafarman’s thread.

Comment #71376

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 13, 2006 5:29 PM (e)

Nah, we don’t need no freakin’ rules, man!

Although, STJ, it was pretty clever of you to use the old mismatched tag dodge. That got us a “free” extra comment right there.

Comment #71378

Posted by yorktank on January 13, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

Oh Larry, where art thou? And, Larry, please forgive me for sounding like a Britisher…rest assured I am a Merkin.

Comment #71394

Posted by AC on January 13, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

Well, Larry didn’t address Carol, but he’s here like bad cologne. I could be wrong about the pledge.

Comment #71401

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

When this thread:

either gets to 1000 posts:

or we give up (it takes ages to load and I’ve got broadband!):

I will invite you all back to my ‘English Garden Party’ where everyone is welcome - but everyone has to be as ‘gracious’ (= nice) to everyone: as people were ‘gracious’ to me the one time I went to America.

My rules will be posted there when I can get my act together - Lenny will be ‘thrown out at the door’ if you get the flavour…

I will be a wonderful host for Carol, and David and Larry if they wish to come.

I’d like to hear what you have to say..

What what are your ‘guiding principles’? - for example…????

But : no fights: no rudeness:

at the:

English Garden Party

Comment #71410

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

Well, Larry didn’t address Carol, but he’s here like bad cologne. I could be wrong about the pledge..

and i could be wrong as well.

I doubt Carol will ever bother to clue either of us in. Or answer any critiques of her postulations, or admit to any inconsistencies, etc.

I think she likes to leave folks hanging.

again, remarkably like Heddley.

Comment #71411

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 6:25 PM (e)

hmm, getting back the “custom designed human”, i give you this:

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/kids/2005-12/aaft-afa120905.php

yeah, yeah, it’s a kiddie audience, but the facts are still relevant.

Comment #71439

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 13, 2006 7:15 PM (e)

Comment #70965 posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 06:45 AM

If you look on the other thread I explain how it works there Steve. In simple terms if a school wilfully disregards the National Curriculum, then OFSTED find out, and funding can be pulled so the school closes down.

So far as I can see, the British National Curriculum standards only require – or at least strongly recommend – that evolution theory be taught in science classes. So far I have been shown no evidence that those standards prohibit the teaching of creationism or ID in science classes.

Scary Larry

Comment #71458

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 13, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

Oh, hey there, kiddo! I’m glad you made it back over here from “Legal Eagles” (where, you have to admit, you were getting even futher out of your depth than usual!).

But, I don’t mean to get snarky. I am glad to see you, really! And feel free, now that you’re back on “your” thread, to invite Kevin Vicklund on over here, if you want to continue your education in discussion about the law.

Thanks! And, hey, good to see you back!

Comment #71468

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 13, 2006 7:44 PM (e)

Man, this is so cool! We’re with a fe niggling posts of seven hundred! Excellent!

I’ve gotta go watch The Squid and the Whale now, but pretty soon Lenny will be here, and Carol, and maybe Heddle, and I’m sure with all that going on that you guys will have no trouble putting this thing over the top!

Go team, go! Rah, rah, rah!

Comment #71470

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 13, 2006 7:47 PM (e)

Oops! Within a few!

(Heh heh.)

Comment #71475

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

So far as I can see, the British National Curriculum standards only require — or at least strongly recommend — that evolution theory be taught in science classes. So far I have been shown no evidence that those standards prohibit the teaching of creationism or ID in science classes.

Our kids have exams to pass and lives to lead Larry.

Why would they need rubbish with their facts?

.. technical point .. ‘English and Welsh - not ‘British’ - you’ll get the Scots and Northern Irish involved and then you’ll be in trouble.

Bit like me calling you a ‘yankee’ if you like….

Comment #71494

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 8:42 PM (e)

They shoot horses don’t they…

(groan….)

Comment #71498

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

700

Comment #71500

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 8:57 PM (e)

“Yankee” isn’t considered an insult except in the South (especially the deep South - ala N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missippi, & Texas).

Comment #71509

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 13, 2006 9:07 PM (e)

Has this thread now broken the record for longest PT thread ever?

And does Pim know what kind of monster he created?

Comment #71510

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

“Yankee” isn’t considered an insult except in the South (especially the deep South - ala N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missippi, & Texas).

yeah but i’m confused about Larry - Los Angeles isn’t normal ‘Confederate flag country’ is it?

… shoot me now!!!!

tired …

must sleeeep……

Comment #71512

Posted by Red Mann on January 13, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

Rkootknir, you are a devil, or a beast. Congrats on getting the magic number.

Comment #71521

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 9:29 PM (e)

Has this thread now broken the record for longest PT thread ever?

And does Pim know what kind of monster he created?

I’m trying to get the status from Reed.

in the meantime, assume we need to push to 1000.

lots of topics raised, pick one and run with it.

Comment #71527

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 9:40 PM (e)

hey, since this thread was initially about Dembski, I’d point out here that I’ve been saying for months that it is readily apparent that the evidence suggests Dembski’s primary motivation for supporting ID is simply monetary in nature.

without going into the arguments, unless asked, of course…

i give you WD40’s latest slick new way of making money from ID:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/659

Comment #71528

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

It sure sounds to me like Dembski is following in L. Ron Hubbard’s footsteps.

Comment #71555

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 13, 2006 10:50 PM (e)

Comment #71475 posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 07:56 PM

****So far as I can see, the British National Curriculum standards only require — or at least strongly recommend — that evolution theory be taught in science classes. So far I have been shown no evidence that those standards prohibit the teaching of creationism or ID in science classes.*****

Our kids have exams to pass and lives to lead Larry.

Why would they need rubbish with their facts?

So how is teaching ID or creationism going to stop them from passing exams or leading lives? It would hardly slow them down.

Anyway, you are missing the point. The point is that you claimed that it is against the rules to teach ID/creationism as science in British (or English/Welsh, or whatever) government-supported schools, and you have not proven that. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

One of the reasons why this thread is getting so long is that people are cluttering it up with frivolous posts.

Comment #71558

Posted by argy stokes on January 13, 2006 11:06 PM (e)

Larry Laffer wrote:

One of the reasons why this thread is getting so long is that people are cluttering it up with frivolous posts.

And your evidence for this is…?

Comment #71566

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 11:25 PM (e)

Technically, knowing what something isn’t *does* help establish what it is. If the “things that it isn’t” are too specific, however, it takes far too many of them to establish just what the thing actually is, so in practice, it’s rarely useful.

That’s it. Return to your regular thread. Carry on.

I said, carry on.

That’s better.

Comment #71570

Posted by gwangung on January 13, 2006 11:43 PM (e)

One of the reasons why this thread is getting so long is that people are cluttering it up with frivolous posts.

Well, you should shut up and do some basic research, Larry, so you know what you’re talking about.

Comment #71576

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 11:59 PM (e)

yeah but i’m confused about Larry - Los Angeles isn’t normal ‘Confederate flag country’ is it?

typically considered about as far from it as New York.

Larry does NOT represent your typical LA denizen.

well, I’d say larry does not represent your typical HUMAN even, but that’s slightly more debatable.

i guess.

Comment #71578

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 14, 2006 12:02 AM (e)

yeah but i’m confused about Larry - Los Angeles isn’t normal ‘Confederate flag country’ is it?

Not in the slightest. You’re way more likely to see the flag of, say, El Salvador.

Now, Bakersfield, on the other hand…

Comment #71580

Posted by jim on January 14, 2006 12:04 AM (e)

Larry,

It’s only your opinion that people are filling this thread with frivolous posts. Whereas it’s plainly obvious to the most casual observer that the Bible says that we aren’t filling it with frivolous posts.

Comment #71584

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 14, 2006 12:24 AM (e)

Unmark wrote:

Eugene (post 70950): personal definitions of words only leads to confusion and ignorance, IMO. Omni means, essentially, infinity, which is a purely fictional construct. Moreover, placing limits on God, in many (most?) Christian circles, would get you well-charred - I’m sure a certain toasty location to spend eternity would be mentioned….

I actually agree with most everything you say about this. I am the one to put a lid on omni, but rather that christians who claim an omni-blah god have no idea what they are talking about, and when presented the logical problems of omni would quickly jump to nonsense such as “god can’t do the logically impossible” or “god is above logic” or “god is not limited by physics” . Such claims have absolutely no meaning, but are all direct extension of omni.

Comment #71588

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 14, 2006 12:33 AM (e)

AC wrote:

People who rob and kill little old ladies aren’t trying to survive. A gazelle running from a cheetah is trying to survive.

Is the cheetah chasing a gazelle trying to survive then?

Comment #71597

Posted by UnMark on January 14, 2006 1:37 AM (e)

Eugene, that is why I find an argument about God’s morals and benevolence to be much better with Fundies. Original Sin, the 10 Plagues (especially God hardening the Pharoh’s heart so He could commit the 10th Plague), Job, and most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy tend to be good points. The utter futility of prayer with an all-knowing entity often makes for an interesting discussion. I think the only “omni” attribute I’d be tempted to agree with is omnisadistic. >:)

I notice how Carol ignored my proof once I offered it. (“Proof” used in the sense of a mathematical proof.)

Comment #71612

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 3:42 AM (e)

OMNI.

I consider it to mean “all” or “every”.

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 02:34 PM (e) (s)

Stephen Elliot wrote:

Are you certain that is only by fermentation? Port is only 20% and that is not done by just fermentation. It is augmented by adding distilled alcohol. Known as “fortifying”.

You can buy “standard” yeasts for home wine, mead, & beer making.

Since I haven’t done any beer yet, I’m not that familiar with those yeasts.

Typical wine yeasts are good to 12%-15%.
Champaign yeasts are good to 18%.
Certain specific wine yeasts are good to ~20% (I used one of these).
There is also a new yeast good to >22% or maybe a little more.

Although I own a hygrometer, I didn’t measure my batch of *very highly alcoholic mead* (aka “Cheap Date”) so I’m not certain of how alcoholic it really was. However, I used 25 lbs of honey in a 6 gal carboy. The end product was very dry (it wasn’t sweet at all), so it used up all or nearly all of the sugar.

1 glass this mead got me feeling like 2 glasses of my usual stuff. Thus my estimate of ~20% or a little more alcohol.

I used to have a little device (forgot it’s name now), that you could use to measure the alcohol in the end product. Easier than keeping hydrometer records for each batch.

By reusing the yeast from each batch I was able to brew a little stronger (and quicker) each time. Thank God for Evolution. ;>

+1 Post count.

Comment #71690

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 8:47 AM (e)

Champaign yeasts are good to 18%.

As the subject of champagne has now been mentioned, I feel I should correct a widely held but erroneous belief, that the winemakers of Champagne were the first to invent sparkling wine. In fact the first recorded recipe for a sparkling wine can be found in the records of the Abbaye de St. Hilaire, near Limoux, in 1531, long before Champagne was first making sparkling wine. Blanquette de Limoux, the modern equivalent of the St Hilaire product, is an authentic and excellent alternative to champagne.

There is even a suggestion that Dom Perignon, the monk credited with coming up with the idea in Champagne may have spent his novitiate at St. Hilaire, but this is apocryphal.

Comment #71694

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 8:57 AM (e)

@ Sir_Toejam

I was hoping you might comment on this as things seem to have slowed down alarmingly, or is it just time zones?

Comment #71724

Posted by jim on January 14, 2006 10:23 AM (e)

Where did everyone go?

Comment #71730

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 10:33 AM (e)

Posted by jim on January 14, 2006 10:23 AM (e) (s)

Where did everyone go?

Off to bed I imagine. A Time Zone thing.

Comment #71739

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 11:07 AM (e)

Still here Jim….

Larry Fafarman still doesn’t get it:

Comment #71475 posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 07:56 PM

****So far as I can see, the British National Curriculum standards only require — or at least strongly recommend — that evolution theory be taught in science classes. So far I have been shown no evidence that those standards prohibit the teaching of creationism or ID in science classes.*****

Our kids have exams to pass and lives to lead Larry.

Why would they need rubbish with their facts?

So how is teaching ID or creationism going to stop them from passing exams or leading lives? It would hardly slow them down.

Anyway, you are missing the point. The point is that you claimed that it is against the rules to teach ID/creationism as science in British (or English/Welsh, or whatever) government-supported schools, and you have not proven that. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

Like I said Larry we don’t have rules against teaching ‘Jedi’ explanations of the Universe - and Jedi is Britain’s fourth most popular religion. The number of ‘wrong’ religious interpretations of the universe - if not infinite is impossibly large and our legislation would be a bit cumbersome if we had to bar something every time someone had a whacky idea.
Anyway, as we have faith schools kids can be instructed in the tenets of their religion at school if the parents opt for this - In ‘Religious Education’ classes. Then they can go the lab and learn some science. Since the vast majority of our schools are Church of England or Roman Catholic, and these happily accept evolution, there is no conflict anyway.
The majority of the public think that an expansion of faith schools is a bad idea - especially as it could lead to the state funding schools Governed by Islamic fundamentalists. Tony Blair sems to think it is a good idea - but he is having a big problem with his plans to give more freedom in running their own affairs - including the liklihood of a backbench rebellion.

The GCSE Biology and Science exams that kids need to pass to progress through the education system , require the demonstration of an understanding of evolution. Any kid that pops down a creationist answer is going to get that part wrong. So even parents that want their kids to accept creationism as science need their kids to be taught evolution so they can progress in life.

One of the reason this thread is getting so long is that you dragged this discussion here from another thread, despite my repeated requests that we continue there.

Now, do you agree with Carol that the Bible says the Sun goes around the Earth?

Comment #71740

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 11:10 AM (e)

No .. I meant to say that Carol says it’s the other way around..

Yeah - Earth goes around the Sun… thats it (sorry Carol)

(late night last night)

Comment #71742

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

Just read STJ’s link to Dembski’s latest money making wheeze. When the discussion starts to go off thread (they discuss whether Richard Dawkins is a ‘girly-boy) then Bill helpfully brings it back on-thread with:

#

Hey, let’s get this thread back on track, which is how to make some money with Evolve Yourself, Inc. I’m looking for investors.

Comment by William Dembski — January 13, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

Then he bans someone.

No change there then.

Comment #71748

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 11:32 AM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 11:22 AM (e) (s)

Just read STJ’s link to Dembski’s latest money making wheeze. When the discussion starts to go off thread (they discuss whether Richard Dawkins is a ‘girly-boy) then Bill helpfully brings it back on-thread with:

#

Hey, let’s get this thread back on track, which is how to make some money with Evolve Yourself, Inc. I’m looking for investors.

Comment by William Dembski — January 13, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

Then he bans someone.

No change there then.

The weird thing is that financially it would probably be a good investment. I think Bill Dembski has the art of making cash.

Trouble is, it would probably need the dropping of integrity to cash in.

Post Count +1

Comment #71749

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

Trouble is, it would probably need the dropping of integrity to cash in.

LOL

Comment #71764

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 12:27 PM (e)

Perhaps ID stands for ‘Intelligent Deceit’?

Comment #71765

Posted by steve s on January 14, 2006 12:29 PM (e)

Inevitably Doomed

Comment #71766

Posted by steve s on January 14, 2006 12:37 PM (e)

Comment #71580

Posted by jim on January 14, 2006 12:04 AM (e) (s)

Larry,

It’s only your opinion that people are filling this thread with frivolous posts. Whereas it’s plainly obvious to the most casual observer that the Bible says that we aren’t filling it with frivolous posts.

According to my new Landa translation, this thread is perfectly consistent with the bible. Which is depressing, because as an atheist, I desperately need the bible to be inconsistent with this thread. My whole self-worth hinges on it. It consumes my being. As Dave Heddle correctly points out.

Comment #71769

Posted by gregonomic on January 14, 2006 12:43 PM (e)

Funny thing is, I thought WAD had given up the blogging game? Wasn’t he too busy for all this? That’s why he handed the reigns over to Herr DaveScot, right?

Comment #71770

Posted by gregonomic on January 14, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

Heh, even the ID supporters are starting to see what a phony the WAD is:

Bling Bling on UD wrote:

“But the more I thought about it, especially with intelligent design taking the hits it has lately…”
“Yes, ID is itself evolving!”
“Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!”
“Like you really want to evolve yourself unintelligently. Sure, it’s good enough for animals and plants to evolve by unintelligent Darwinian means, but not for people like us who have limited time and lots to accomplish.”

Yikes. I actually believe this stuff Bill. Are you saying your in it for the money and there is no substance to what your peddling? I feel like I have been duped. Ouch. That cuts as close as it comes. I suppose I will Have my viewpoint eliminated for this but man, this utterly shakes my faith in you man. Just another common fraud. Like lenny bruce once said “ANy man of god with more than 2 suits is a shyster.”

“Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!”

Ok, I think that someone out there needs to remind folks that being alive is a miracle and that there is evidence for design but boy, I don’t think it should be someone who is getting $$ off it and then exploiting the folks they’ve been leading. Thats as bad as tv evangelism.

Something smells really bad here.

Ugh, I always feel so dirty after visiting that site. Time to go scrub myself in the shower…

Comment #71775

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

“There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark Uncommon Descent”.

Comment #71777

Posted by guthrie on January 14, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

old peculiar isnt unique. If you want unique try stuff like “Fraoch”, which is heather based.
Or the one made of seaweed. Or the real ale that is basically oak cask conditioned, its quite nice, but a bit odd.

Sorry, cant make London at any notice. I am skint, having just bought a flat, and am currently busy re-decorating it.

Comment #71794

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 2:06 PM (e)

Enville Ale has honey added to produce a second fermentation. It really does deserve to be better known, but maybe they can sell all they make.

Comment #71795

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 2:08 PM (e)

And, no, I don’t have shares in the business.

Comment #71801

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 2:14 PM (e)

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 02:06 PM (e) (s)

Enville Ale has honey added to produce a second fermentation. It really does deserve to be better known, but maybe they can sell all they make.

That site lists some very interesting sounding beers.

Did you ever try Burtons? Before being taken over by some large brewing chain, they made some class beer.

Comment #71803

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 2:23 PM (e)

You seem to think I’m some kind of alcoholic, Stephen. The only Burton I associate with beer is the Mecca of British brewing, Burton-upon-Trent, home of Marstons.

Comment #71806

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 2:31 PM (e)

Actually, I think that should be Burtn-on-Trent. That probably comes of hailing from near Stratford-upon-Avon, where I did quite a bit of beer research as a lad. I’m old enough to remember the Flower’s brewery (the Flower family were benefactors to the Royal Shakespeare theatre) before that was taken over and demolished.

Comment #71808

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 2:34 PM (e)

You seem to think I’m some kind of alcoholic, Stephen. The only Burton I associate with beer is the Mecca of British brewing, Burton-upon-Trent, home of Marstons.

Yep, the brewery in Burton-upon-Trent. Their product was colloquially known as Burtons. Gave rise to the expression “gone for a burton”, which meant gone forever. Presumably because when someone went to the pub for a pint of Burtons, they were not returning anytime soon.

Comment #71810

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 2:37 PM (e)

BTW does anyone else think this tirade from DaveScot is libellous?

Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars. My favorite example was when I questioned his credentials and his response was essentially “the communists took my papers”. Evidently Mark doesn’t know the classic American excuse “my dog ate my homework”. I had a field day with that one.

In this case, it would again appear that Mark’s proof disappeared in an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. A mysterious software glitch in Amazon Canada magically and momentarily revealed the name “William Dembski” behind an anonymous reviewer’s handle. Wow! What’re the odds? At any rate Mark’s “the Canadian software ate my proof” is par for the course for this guy.

The short answer is Perakh, like a million other lunatics, doesn’t deserve a response to his paranoid accusations.

Comment #71813

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 2:49 PM (e)

I just checked to see what brewers remain in Burton and I am pleased to see Marstons still going strong. However there is also an interloper from the US .

Comment #71815

Posted by Bob O'H on January 14, 2006 2:52 PM (e)

Alan Fox wrote:

Enville Ale has honey added to produce a second fermentation. It really does deserve to be better known, but maybe they can sell all they make.

Definitely worth drinking. I’ve never tried it myself, but it’s brewed with Maris Otter, which is an old PBI variety. That means it helped pay for my PhD, on barley mildew.

Bob

Comment #71819

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 3:10 PM (e)

Did you ever try Burtons? Before being taken over by some large brewing chain, they made some class beer.

One of my absolute favourites - although very rarely seen in these parts nowadays- actually the beer that weaned me off the Guinness.

Very hoppy and distinctive - not to everyones taste - a sad day when my local took it off because I was the only one drinking it.

Did I mention I live next to a pub - I can pop next door and get a pint of the foaming ale any time I fancy one - I take my own glass and bring it to drink at my workstation from time to time…..

Where’s Larry gone? - perhaps he did get a date with that nice lady at the library?

Comment #71821

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 3:13 PM (e)

I aksed Reed about whether 1000 posts in this thread would set a record, and whether he had any objections.

this was his response:

That many posts can make a entry difficult to do. It also taxes the
system. Please avoid doing it.

fair enough (party pooper)

well, I think we can reasonably assume that whatever the count is when this thread is finally closed, it will be a PT record.

so congrats to all, even Lalalarry!

Comment #71822

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 3:14 PM (e)

Queen gets ‘glassy eyed’ on Buton’s beer - official:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2099451.stm

Comment #71824

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 3:18 PM (e)

BTW does anyone else think this tirade from DaveScot is libellous?

for something DaveScot said to be libelous, doesn’t somebody have to actually care what he says to begin with?

I can’t imagine anything that lonely boy says to have an economic, or any other lasting impact, on anybody at any time.

Comment #71826

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 14, 2006 3:23 PM (e)

Oh well - since the real value of this thread is in keeping the trolls tied down in one place then perhaps we should wait for them to show up..

In the meantime we could continue conversation on beer etc at:

The English Garden Party

at ‘After the Bar’.

Comment #71828

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 3:26 PM (e)

OMNI.

Isn’t that the magazine published by the makers of Playboy for those who really DID just read Playboy for the “articles”?

Comment #71833

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 3:40 PM (e)

Alan:

You mean this:

What about warm-bloodedness in the Great White Shark being another example of evolution in action.

interesting you should mention that.

I used to research White Sharks near Santa Cruz, CA., while i was working with a non-profit shark research group there.

I’ts a bit of a long story, and i think this thread is gonna get shut down soon, so ask me again over in the ATBC area.

just to answer your question quickly.

yes.

lol. just kidding.

yeah, not only is the heat exchange system in white sharks a great example of evolution “in action” (tho we are really talking something that probably evolved in the lamnids tens of millions of years ago (maybe up to 140 million), it also is a great example of parallel evolution. The White Shark, several other lamnids (like makos, salmon sharks, etc.), along with many other pelagic bony fishes like tuna and billfish, have all evolved a very similar “rete mirabila” structure that functions as a heat-exchange system that works to maintain their primary locomotory muscles at temperatures well above the ambient temperature of the surrounding water.

White sharks use a modification of this system to keep their stomachs warm to aid in digestion as well.

Like I said tho., if you want history and details, start another thread over at ATBC and I’d be happy to oblige.

Comment #71847

Posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

Thanks for the offer, Sir T., see you over there.

BTW, If Reed thinks this will blow a gasket, then I think he should at least post a comment here to confirm.

Comment #71864

Posted by AC on January 14, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

Eugene Lai wrote:

Is the cheetah chasing a gazelle trying to survive then?

Yes, and on second thought, that’s what I should have said. My point was that animals killing each other to eat is very different from the average mugger/burglar stealing. The cheetah kills and eats the gazelle or dies. Humans have a lot more options.

Comment #71903

Posted by Red Mann on January 14, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Actually, OMNI was published by Penthouse’s Bob Giuconne (sp? Damn can’t rememeber how to spell his name. It’s my CRS.). I have some up in my attic, somewhere. I thought it was pretty good back in the 80’s.

Comment #71907

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 8:26 PM (e)

Penthouse, not Playboy. got it.

on another note, I knew it wouldn’t take long for the media to misintrepret the results of the plant/methane study i linked to earlier.

However, it still was surprising to me to see the headline:

Global warming: blame the forests

in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1684378,00.html

*sigh*

frackin’ idjuts.

I’m sure you will something to the same effect on Rush Limbaugh’s show next week.

Comment #71929

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 14, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

I used to research White Sharks near Santa Cruz, CA., while i was working with a non-profit shark research group there.

I occasionally see sharks while kayaking out in Tampa Bay. I’m certainly no fish expert, but they looked like blacktip sharks to me, around 4-5 feet long. Once I had one pass right under my boat as I was drifting – that was cool as shit.

Incidentally, when I made my kayak, I painted her orange with black tiger stripes and christened her “Tiger Shark”. ;)

Comment #71935

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 10:29 PM (e)

Ah, my best friend lives in Sarasota. We spent some time snorkeling in the keys last year.

sharks are pretty amazing critters, alrighty. it’s like after a 100 million plus years of evo, they reached the “good enough” point, and simply stopped. remarkable sets of sensory and morphological adaptations.

as stories go, i have two that really stick in my mind.

Once, when i was a grad student at Berzerkely, I spent a field season in Moorea (French Polynesia - right near Tahiti). I had the occassion to do some specimen collecting for the ichthyology museum in Tahiti one day while i was there.

We were diving around 100-120 feet on the windward side of the island. Water was so clear that it seemed like full daylight even at that depth; except that of course there was no red light left, so everything was blue-green.

We were collecting specimens for the “archives” so to speak, so we were using spears. One of the medium-sized groupers i speared managed to get off, and left a bright chartreuse-green trail (that’s the color of blood at 110 feet) behind it as it fled under a coral head about 20 meters off.

Well, being the sort not to let my mistakes go uncorrected, i proceeded to follow the blood trail toward the coral head… and then noticed about halfway there that a rather large grey reef shark (about 7 feet) had decided to do exactly the same thing! He was no more than 3 feet away from me, swimming the same speed, right beside me.

Needless to say, as soon as i glanced to my right, I hit the “brakes”! without a glance or a pause, he moved right into my line, and continued on to the coral head, where he made quick work of the grouper hiding there.

Nothing left but a few scales floating gently away amidst a bright green cloud.

It was startling, and i think my adrenaline levels about doubled, but i never really felt threatened at any time. It was pretty clear we both were completely focused on the same thing and just ignored each other most of the way.

The other encounter that really grabbed me was some time after i started studying white sharks near Santa Cruz.

It’s hard to describe these things and do them justice, really. Seeing a 16 foot “fish” swim under your 15 foot boat is just… one of those things you just have to see yourself to really understand. Awesome doesn’t begin to descibe the feeling.

In any case, I do remember one day that i would best describe to be just like that scene in “Jaws” where Roy Schneider is tossing chum out of a bucket over the side while talking to someone on the boat, then turns around to find the shark staring at him.

It really was just like that.

I was preparing a camera to take identification photos of the sharks we were tagging, and i was sitting on the stern of the boat, concentrating on the camera itself.

My buddy pokes me in the back, and quietly says, “Uh, is your camera ready?”; whereupon i glance up and see that a 15 foot white has spyhopped out of the water about 3 feet away from me, and is literally looking at me eye-to-eye. It did this so quietly, i didn’t even hear more than a ripple!

I’ll never forget that 2 inch diameter jet black eye, staring right at me. Mouth slightly agape, body almost completely vertical, with the tip of its snout about 3.5 feet out of the water.

Again, no feeling of menace; more a feeling of curiosity, like, “Uh, i smell something good, but what the hell is this thing?”

I was too dumbfounded to actually snap the shot, so my buddy grabbed the camera out of my hands and did it for me. right after, the shark gradually lost momentum and started to slide back down into the water.

I still have the photo of course; I’ll post a link if you like.

Comment #71949

Posted by Bruce Beckman on January 14, 2006 11:55 PM (e)

STJ, please post a link to any shark photos you have. Thanks.

My friend and I were diving in La Jolla Bay one sunny summer Sunday. We had launched my inflatable at the boat launching area located at the south end of La Jolla Strand Beach. The launching area is about 50’ wide and is roped off from the mile long beach to keep the swimmers out. Being a nice summer Sunday, the beach was packed.

Returning from a couple of dives in the south branch of the La Jolla submarine canyon, we tool up the the boat launching area. When we get within 10 feet of shore I cut the engine, swing it up and we both jump off the side to pull the boat up onto the beach. To our surprise the shallows was packed with ~30 4 to 5 foot long leopard sharks. I landed right on top of one and they all shoot off in different directions. Several swam up onto the beach and flopped around a bit before getting back into the water.

There were a lot of people on the beach standing around with their jaws dropping down watching the spectacle.

Comment #71956

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 15, 2006 12:22 AM (e)

here’s a link to the specific photo i was referring to; my personal shark shots i haven’t organized into any coherent online format yet, and there are a few issues with copyright (the non-prof i used to work with sells them), so i haven’t really been in rush to do so.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/whiteface.jpg

a small bit of my underwater stuff is here; I’m experimenting with some flash display styles.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/

and some of the rest of my stuff is here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83147904@N00/

do you dive in La Jolla still? I used to dive there once upon a time myself.

cheers

Comment #71958

Posted by Bruce Beckman on January 15, 2006 12:42 AM (e)

STJ, great photos! Your whiteface fish looks like it has some scratches and bite marks on its neck. Perhaps a female?

I haven’t dived in La Jolla in 10 years or so. Over the past 3 decades that my friend and I have been diving in SoCal, we noticed the steady degradation of the underwater environment. We decided to do something about it and started this organization http://www.oceandefenders.org/ thus all my underwater time is taken up with hauling trash.

Comment #71963

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 15, 2006 1:06 AM (e)

nice job. always glad to see somebody taking an active stance to help clean up.

Perhaps a female?

well, it WAS a female, but ya gotta remember what these things eat - elephant seals!

ever see an elephant seal up close? they have big, nasty teethies and have decent claws to boot.

most of the head marks and scars on the white sharks around where we studied them and at the Farallon Islands are mostly due to damage from prey items.

In fact, white sharks are mostly engage in ambush-style, bite-and-wait hunting when going after seals, most likely to avoid serious injury. they hit REALLY hard once, then back off and wait for the prey to weaken a bit.

tho that isn’t ALWAYS the case; sometimes they just go right on in and tear ‘em up, but I think that is mostly with smaller elephant seals,

sometimes it’s real easy to tell where they got the scars from, as you will see nice parallel lines from the elephant seal claws.

I can’t recall anybody ever witnessing mating behavior in white sharks off of CA, so I doubt anybody knows whether some of the scars might be mating scars as well, but both male and female whites show similar types of scar patterns around their heads, that and the patterns heavily suggest these are the results of prey interactions.

cheers

Comment #71964

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 15, 2006 1:12 AM (e)

oh, btw, i see your organization is in OC!

I was born in newport, and grew up in Costa Mesa.

I’m out near Palm Springs right now.

maybe we could go for a dive sometime?

fisheyephotos AT hotmail DOT com

cheers

Comment #71966

Posted by Bruce Beckman on January 15, 2006 1:48 AM (e)

STJ, I’m in Mission Viejo.

ever see an elephant seal up close? they have big, nasty teethies and have decent claws to boot.

Yea, both in the wild and in-hand. My friend is the medical director for the Pacific Marine Mammal Center and I help out there sometimes.

I guess I might as well get in a plug for the other non-profit group I work with. Check out www.pacificwildlife.org

I got a kick out of the comment from some troll up-thread claiming that albatros must have large flight muscles. So I go over and check the two leysan albatros I have…no big flight muscles here. Now the six American White Pelicans I have in-hand, now they have big flight muscles. But they’re pretty big birds anyway (closely tied with the California Condor as the largest NA bird).

Comment #71975

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 15, 2006 4:05 AM (e)

S_TJ/Bruce.

Have either of you ever dived off Belize.
The sea life there is amazing. There is also a large living reef and the blue hole. Excellent visibility too.

Here is a site.

http://www.scubadivingbelize.com/

I was lucky enough to do two 6 month tours there. The last time I was in Belize was 1992 and it was starting to get commercial. The mainland has probably changed a lot since I was left but hopefully the diving will still be as good.

They have a marine wildlife preserve. Should you wish for a change from the diving there is/was plenty of jungle and Mayan sites to visit.

Comment #72028

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 15, 2006 6:49 AM (e)

Spell error…marine wildlife *reserve*

Comment #72033

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 15, 2006 7:00 AM (e)

sharks are pretty amazing critters, alrighty. it’s like after a 100 million plus years of evo, they reached the “good enough” point, and simply stopped. remarkable sets of sensory and morphological adaptations.

Just like gators. :)

We were diving around 100-120 feet

Alas, I’ve never been scuba diving – the only time I go underwater is if I flip the kayak over.

Ironic, since I work for a company that makes dive masks. If you’ve ever used a Sea Vision mask or prescription lenses, I’m the guy who put it together for you. :)

I do go snorkeling once in a while.

Comment #72037

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 15, 2006 7:06 AM (e)

Seeing a 16 foot “fish” swim under your 15 foot boat is just… one of those things you just have to see yourself to really understand. Awesome doesn’t begin to descibe the feeling.

Seeing just a four-footer swim underneath my 16ft kayak was awfully impressive. Of course, in a kayak, I’m much closer to the water than people in a “real” boat —- indeed, my butt sits about four inches BELOW the water.

I’ve seen gators, manatees and dolphins up-close, too.

Comment #72052

Posted by Bruce Beckman on January 15, 2006 7:53 AM (e)

Lenny, would you like a 8 inch red eared slider (female)? One of our local agencies (San Juan Capistrano Animal Services) found her crossing some highway. A week after I got her she dropped ~20 eggs. I guess she was an escapee from someones backyard pond out looking for a nesting spot. Under my license I am barred by California Department of Fish and Game regulations from releasing her into the wild.

Comment #72103

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 15, 2006 10:25 AM (e)

Lenny, would you like a 8 inch red eared slider (female)?

Alas, I now live in a converted garage, and all I have space for are my cockroach colony, my tarantula (Legs Diamond) and my two rat snakes (Callisto and Ganymede), who take up half of my living room.

Back when I used to do reptile rescue, I’d get calls EVERY WEEK about (1) iguanas, (2) burmese pythons and (3) red eared sliders, that people didn’t want any more. When I used to do educational talks for schools, Scout classes and such, I always displayed adults of those three species, and tried my best to talk people OUT of obtaining them.

Comment #72121

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 15, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

I just love the title of this thread from UD.

January 12, 2006
The Dembski-Ruse Road Show Continues

Freudian slip?

Almost as good as offering a debate in the “Lied centre”.

Comment #72192

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 15, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

Just like gators. :)

quite.

Ironic, since I work for a company that makes dive masks. If you’ve ever used a Sea Vision mask or prescription lenses, I’m the guy who put it together for you. :)

lol. I did indeed once own a Sea Vision mask.

so, thanks.

:)

Comment #72215

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 15, 2006 3:55 PM (e)

Seems that we have evolved in to the ‘divers and kayakers thread’ - good thing in my opinion.

I’ve dived in a few places around the world - one of my best dives was on a wreck at about 100 ft in the British Virgin Isles. The wreck was an old British mail ship that went down in a hurricane about 100 years ago. It sits flat on the bottom, in crystal clear water (you can see the from the surface)- in tow parts - it snapped amidships.

I entered the forward section at the break with my dive buddy, swimming against the current. The interior was pretty open - the wooden partitions having rotted out leaving the steel hull. As I swam forward I could see the opening at the stern that was our exit. At this depth it was breathtaking - the light coming through the opening made it seem as if it was a rippling stained glass window. I mumbled ‘wow!’ into my mouthpiece - and looked to my right to share the experience with my dive buddy.
At this point I found that my ‘dive buddy’ was now a four-foot long loggerhead turtle.
Swimming alongside me in the confined space his eye looked huge, and his beak somewhat alarming. He obviously felt more uncomfortable with the situation than even I did - and accelerated up to the ‘window’ where he did a 180 degree turn - shot towards, then right past me.

The first thing I said (aloud to myself) when I got back to the dive boat was ‘better than sex’. The first thing my dive buddy said was ‘nearly as good as sex’.
Never was sure if this was he had a better sex life, or I had a better experience.

Isn’t nature wonderful eh?

Comment #72218

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 15, 2006 4:01 PM (e)

The first thing I said (aloud to myself) when I got back to the dive boat was ‘better than sex’.

Dude, I’m sorry to hear that. (big fat evil grin)

Comment #72254

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 15, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

Seems that we have evolved in to the ‘divers and kayakers thread’ - good thing in my opinion.

I’ve dived in a few places around the world - one of my best dives was on a wreck at about 100 ft in the British Virgin Isles. The wreck was an old British mail ship that went down in a hurricane about 100 years ago. It sits flat on the bottom, in crystal clear water (you can see the from the surface)- in tow parts - it snapped amidships.

I entered the forward section at the break with my dive buddy, swimming against the current. The interior was pretty open - the wooden partitions having rotted out leaving the steel hull. As I swam forward I could see the opening at the stern that was our exit. At this depth it was breathtaking - the light coming through the opening made it seem as if it was a rippling stained glass window. I mumbled ‘wow!’ into my mouthpiece - and looked to my right to share the experience with my dive buddy.
At this point I found that my ‘dive buddy’ was now a four-foot long loggerhead turtle.
Swimming alongside me in the confined space his eye looked huge, and his beak somewhat alarming. He obviously felt more uncomfortable with the situation than even I did - and accelerated up to the ‘window’ where he did a 180 degree turn - shot towards, then right past me.

The first thing I said (aloud to myself) when I got back to the dive boat was ‘better than sex’. The first thing my dive buddy said was ‘nearly as good as sex’.
Never was sure if this was he had a better sex life, or I had a better experience.

Isn’t nature wonderful eh?

Comment #72256

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 15, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

Well my story was so good I seem to have posted twice - perhaps we should knock one of the thread count?

On a completely different matter I’ve just watched an amazing documentary about Rosalind Franklin; and how her part in the discovery of the Double Helix structure of DNA was covered up by Watson, Crick and Wilson.

The program was a joint US UK co-operation so you might get to see it in the States as ‘Photo 51’

the US website of the show is here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/

the UK website here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/rosalind-franklin.shtml

.. really the most moving program about science I can remember seeing…

Comment #72404

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 8:55 AM (e)

Hey Larry! - looks like you’ve got new company:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_revisionism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1687134,00.html

You planning to go to the ‘conference?

Comment #72412

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 9:15 AM (e)

Another Dawkins webcast for ‘Darwin day’:

‘Is evolution predictable’:

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/psychology/bully/darwin/

.. also mentions that the local brewery is producing ‘Evolution Ale’ to mark the occasion!

Comment #72452

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 1:31 PM (e)

And, LaLaLarry maroon, if you’re still around, you might want to do a little research on the jawbones to inner ear bones evolution. This was one of the earliest homologies that was figured out, before Darwin and Wallace came up with their natural selection mechanism.

You might start with reading up on Darwin’s predecessor, Buffon.

Comment #72453

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 1:55 PM (e)

Have either of you ever dived off Belize

Cozumel, yes. Belize, no.

What were you doing in Belize for 6 mos?

Comment #72460

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 2:18 PM (e)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 01:55 PM (e) (s)

Cozumel, yes. Belize, no.

What were you doing in Belize for 6 mos?

I was in the British army from Sep.1978-Mar.2002.
Went to Belize twice (6 months at a time) so got to spend a year in the Caribbean ))))

Anyway, top class diving there. Also some serious game fishing, if you like that. In fact a pretty good choice of activities all round.

Where in southern California are you? I have been to a few places there. Went twice for three weeks at a time, carrying out parachute trials. Stayed in El Centro but got to visit San Diego quite a few times and L.A. once.

Comment #72469

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

So…

our army sends the guys to wonderful places like Afghanistan, and you guys get stuck going to Belize?

gees, sorry buddy.

;)

Yes, I’ve heard the diving in Belize is pretty good. The diving most places in the Caribbean is excellent. Cozumel was getting a bit overused when i was there, and now of course the hurricane pretty much leveled the place, both above and below the water.

I’ve spent time all over CA, but am currently living near Palm Springs (fish out of water, literally).

If you’re ever planning on visiting CA, shoot me a msg.

2002… so you just managed to miss out on all the recent “fun”. that was a squeeker, eh? Did you end up serving time in the first Gulf War?

Comment #72470

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 3:00 PM (e)

Hey, there’s good diving in Puget Sound, too.

Although you do have to bundle up a bit more…

Comment #72473

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 3:13 PM (e)

I was only on the fringes on the first Gulf war. Managed to get N.I. Bosnia and Kosovo though. ))

I have been to Afghanistan. I went to work for UNHCR. I had a 3 month contract with them mid 2002. My first job after the army.

Doubt I will make CA anytime soon. Too many outgoings on the £ side. Africa is my main dream holliday atm. There is a company (Absolute Africa ) that organise safaris. Rather than travel by air-conditioned vehicle and stay at hotels, you walk, canoe or use open trucks then camp out. Just the ticket.

Would like to go for at least 2 months though. Preferably including Lake Victoria and Zanzibar

Comment #72474

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 3:16 PM (e)

Oh yeh!
Diving in Belize.
80/90ft down and no need of a wet suit. A pair of shorts was plenty good enough.

Comment #72477

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 3:30 PM (e)

Would like to go for at least 2 months though. Preferably including Lake Victoria and Zanzibar

the rift lakes… great examples of evolution in action, literally. cichlid diversification in those lakes is a fruitful area in current evolutionary research, to say the least.

My major prof. at Berzerkely spent a bit of time studying the cichlids there. Highly recommended if you are at all interested in evolutionary biology (and why would you be here if you weren’t ;) )

just a quick and dirty link, but there are literally hundreds of evolutionary studies on rift lake cichlids:

http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Jenkins_2_RiftLakes.html

Comment #72478

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 3:34 PM (e)

as an aside…

If you decide to go, do be careful. Things are a bit dicey out there on your own, and I’m not just talking about the wildlife.

Comment #72480

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 3:38 PM (e)

Hey Stevie-

ever see any of the giant pacific octopus while you were diving in the sound?

Comment #72483

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

Wow! @
http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Jen…

Fascinating stuff.

So many places to see on this planet. Life really is too short to take it all in.

Comment #72484

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 3:52 PM (e)

thinking about it, it would be worth the risk in my book to do a rift lake tour.

If you need an ichthyologist to tag along…

Comment #72485

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 3:55 PM (e)

I’m not much of a diver, myself–at least not in P-P-Puget S-S-Sound!–though I have done the routine at Cozumel and Cancun in years past.

I think that’s more of ke’s thing, if I’m recalling correctly.

They do have some great invertebrates here, though mostly viewed in photos, acquariums, etc.

I’m more of a climber and skier myself, though I loved surfing when I was a kid growing up on Oxnard Beach in CA.

Comment #72487

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

Oops! Didn’t mean that to be a conversation stopper, guys. Feel free to go on without me (though, ahem, I do note that we are only a few more comments away from another benchmark).

Stephen’s adventures definitely sound worth hearing about in greater detail!

Comment #72488

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

eh? don’t mind me; I’ve got a few things to do today. I’ll catch up later.

cheers

Comment #72490

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 4:39 PM (e)

As we are nearing 800 I will post.

The reason the British army was in Belize…

Belize was a former British colony. After independence Guatamala laid claim to it. The Blizean government requested a British presence to stay there until Belize felt secure in it’s own defence.

So there was 3 reasons to be there.
1. Protect Belize from invasion.
2. Train local troops.
3. Belize was used as 1 of two jungle warfare training areas by British forces. The other was in Borneo I believe. BTW the two were very different. Belize being much much wetter.

Comment #72492

Posted by KL on January 16, 2006 4:44 PM (e)

Wow! A thread about diving!

Try San Salvador (SE Bahamas) Sea mount in 6000 ft of water, very dry so very clear. Only 1 dive operation (called the “Rolling Rock”) One of the only warm water dives I’ve done where I got to see sharks (Caribbean Reef). Don’t do the cold water stuff-I’m a wimp.

Diving leaves a bit to be desired in Tennessee… a few quarries.

Comment #72497

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 5:06 PM (e)

Ah, right, KL, not “ke.” Sorry for the fudged memory!

For Stephen, not intending to derail the diving aspect of this, um, multi-faceted thread, but getting back to drinking preferences–

–back before Prohibition in the States, “hard” cider enjoyed almost as much popularity as beer, wine, etc. But when Prohibition was repealed, cider never made a recovery. Very slowly, in recent years, English-style dry hard ciders are making a comeback–partly under the influence, I theorize, of tourist trips to Canada (B.C. makes some great dry ciders!).

If any of you are cider fans, therefore, please think of little Stevie on Darwin Day and host a mug for me!

Comment #72500

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 5:16 PM (e)

I tend to reserve cider drinking for the summer months.

Comment #72501

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 5:32 PM (e)

Ah, understandable, but even with our very “English” climate here in Seattle, I’m now more or less hooked all year round.

The best is Taunton’s Blackthorn cider on tap, which a few of our better bars and taverns carry, but a few American makers are now trotting out some bearable product. And the Taunton’s is available in bottles as well, in a few of the stores, so things are headed in the right direction at least!

And I see, in reviewing the thread, that cider did get a brief mention in the mead-brewing discussion above. Which makes me feel so much better; I hate to instigate thread drift (why, it’s almost as bad as if we were on Pern!).

Comment #72503

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

Oh yeh,
Perish the thought that this thread should go off-topic.

Comment #72504

Posted by steve s on January 16, 2006 5:47 PM (e)

Uncommon Pissant is so ridiculous and moronic that conversations about it break out on Panda’s Thumb all the time. The PTers aren’t providing a dedicated thread to discuss the Everlasting Trainwreck which is that blog, so this thread’s for that.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=14&t=151

Comment #72505

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 5:48 PM (e)

Finish work in 10 mins. Better do some final checks.

Comment #72513

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 6:33 PM (e)

Back home.
Is there an award for 800?

Comment #72521

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have said many times before. That without trolls to feed, the self proclaimed non-trolls on this blog have nothing meaningful or interesting to talk about. The conversation just meanders from one inanity to another.

The only question left is just how much mutual back-scratching can the species engage in?

Comment #72523

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 06:53 PM (e) (s)

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have said many times before. That without trolls to feed, the self proclaimed non-trolls on this blog have nothing meaningful or interesting to talk about. The conversation just meanders from one inanity to another.

The only question left is just how much mutual back-scratching can the species engage in?

What is wrong with diving or alcohol?
Or even frivolous meandering chit-chat?

Comment #72527

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

Oh Carol, admit it–you’re just cheesed off because Stephen Elliott nudged you by a nose for number 800!

But, hey, as long as you’re here, why not answer Lenny’s questions–for a change!

You know, the ones about why we should give a flying fig about your religious opinions, or Heddle’s, much less why we should do so when the two of you hold mutually incompatible opinions?

Comment #72530

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

Stephen,

I didn’t say there was anything “wrong” with diving or alcohol (in moderation), just that the so called regulars should appreciate and therefore be more welcoming of the presence of the so called trolls.

Come to think of it, there actually is something misplaced, in my humble opinion, about analyzing in depth the relative merits of different forms of drinks and drinking. There ought to be more important things in life worthy of the attention of intelligent people.

Comment #72531

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 16, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

Carol, you could, of course, regale us all with your reasons why your religious opinions are any better than anyone else’s, and why sciecne should give a flying fig about them.

Oh, and why Heddle is full of crap when he says the New Testament is the Word of God.

Comment #72532

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 7:13 PM (e)

Stevie,

I have already responded to every one of Lenny’s questions on other threads. Some took as many as 30 back-and-forth posts. But Lenny prefers not to notice the demonstration of the vacuity of his questions, nor does he engage in serious discussion. Discussion to him means that he throws favorite mantras around, over and over again, ad nauseaum, whether meaningul or pertinent or not. So why should I engage in more exercises in futility?

Comment #72536

Posted by argy stokes on January 16, 2006 7:22 PM (e)

Carol,

Could you point me to the thread where you answered Lenny’s questions? If you can do so every time Lenny asks you, he will indeed begin to look the fool.

I also have a question for you, though I’ll admit upfront it’s pretty silly (but hey, isn’t that what this thread is for?). What does Landa look like? Because every time I see his name, I picture Lando Calrissian. If Landa looks like Lando, I might even be tempted to buy his book.

Comment #72539

Posted by ben on January 16, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

there actually is something misplaced, in my humble opinion, about analyzing in depth the relative merits of different forms of drinks and drinking. There ought to be more important things in life worthy of the attention of intelligent people

God forbid anyone discuss anything but the “fact” that the original hebrew bible, as interpreted by Carol Clouser and her idol Judah Landa, are compatible with science, the relevance of which escapes me (no it doesn’t, the relevance is that CC is insecure in her religious beliefs and is desperate for us to share them).

Diving doesn’t interest me, and I like beer a lot but not enough to talk about it for more than a minute, but I’d rather spend a trillion years listening to these guys yak about those things than hear CC blather on about what the bible “really says.”

Can there be anything “humble” about the “humble opinions” of one who will not shut up about them, even when nobody cares?

Comment #72540

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 7:34 PM (e)

Okay Steviepinhead..

But being from proper ‘Scrumpy’ country (Devon) i’d say that- unless Steve Elliots pub is truly exceptional - then outr chances of getting something that isn’t Apple flavoured chemical piss are truly remote.

I knew an old farmer from Sussex ‘Nelson Russell’ - who made truly exceptional and incredibly strong ciders. He used to brew outdoors in great barrels - and had no compunction about adding a bit more sugar if fermentation stopped.

He told me that his cider had to ‘hear the Cuckoo twice’ before it was ready for drinking. That means he’d gather mash and start fermentation in the autumn (fall) of one year. Fermentation would slow down and almost stop during the winter. In the spring he’d start it up again, by adding more sugar as the summer approached - the ‘cuckoo came’ - and once more autumn came. Again the brew would die down with the cold weather. He’d tickle a little more life out of the brew the next spring as the next ‘Cuckoo came’ - and then the Barrel would be ready to start drinking. Each brew was truly delicious, and usually had a theme through the addition of another ingredient such as Damsons or Victoria Plums. Rich red in colour with ‘sherry’ overtones - and presumably similar in strength.
In fact a Sherry glass would be quite capable of blowing your socks off. I made the mistake of drinking a couple of pints once - and as I said I’m from cider country. Some people swore it was hallucinogenic.

Nelson was brewing this stuff well into his eighties - and he was still working on his farm - a true man of steel in my opinion.

Comment #72542

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 07:06 PM (e) (s)

Stephen,

I didn’t say there was anything “wrong” with diving or alcohol (in moderation), just that the so called regulars should appreciate and therefore be more welcoming of the presence of the so called trolls.

Come to think of it, there actually is something misplaced, in my humble opinion, about analyzing in depth the relative merits of different forms of drinks and drinking. There ought to be more important things in life worthy of the attention of intelligent people.

Trolls are more wellcome here than most sites.

Had we been talking about the qualities of various wines, would you be as critical? Real ale (as opposed to most USA beer) is every bit as distinctive and varied as wine. From experience, it is also harder to make.

You are of course correct. There are more important things. There is a saying though that starts “All work and no play makes Jack a…”

Comment #72544

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

A thought that comes to mind as I contemplate 800 posts on one thread, is the following:

Over the course of the last few months, since I first came here, there have emerged two areas of disagreement between myself and many (certainly not all) of the so called non-trolls here. Those areas are:

(1) I argue that science cannot be used as a basis for discrediting the Bible, even if interpreted literally, so long as the original is translated correctly.

(2) I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existance of the universe is to postualate that it exists due to the acts of a creator. And scientists should be adopting the most efficient explanation as their working hypotheses.

Now, after all the discussion and debate, I have not encountered here any reason to cast aside these ideas. There certainly has not appeared on any of the threads a convincing refutation of either of them, despite my frequent invitations and challenges to posters.

Since I see no reason to think that I am any less intelligent, reasonable, educated, open minded, knowledgeable or credentialed, than many people here, I suppose I will persist in my opinions. They are my working hypothses, valid to me until overturned to my satisfaction.

As I continue to express myself in that vein, please do not construe that as “preaching”. Jews do not proslytize, and never have. They, unlike the Christians, have not been sending missionaries the world over to seek converts. I am not interesting in converting anyone to my opinions, and certainly not to sell any books. I merely enjoy the give and take of debate and the rigor of subjecting my views to examination and challenge. As Plato said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

Comment #72546

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Hey Carol! nice to see you back - nothing happening elsewhere?..

We were only chatting and keeping the thread warm while we were waiting for you to come back..

Now remind me - what was the first thing Noah did when the ‘Flood’ receded? Seems he’d fit in pretty well here.
I’d imagine he didn’t bother with the diving though - the visibility couldn’t have been too good if there was enough sediment to deposit miles and miles of rock strata.

Now where’s Larry gone?

Comment #72547

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 7:50 PM (e)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 07:34 PM (e) (s)

Okay Steviepinhead..

But being from proper ‘Scrumpy’ country (Devon) i’d say that- unless Steve Elliots pub is truly exceptional

Wooohh! Easy Tiger.
It isn’t my pub. I haven’t been for a few months. However for a pub in central London, between the Houses of Parliament and Traffalgar Square, it was truly exceptional. Plenty of choice and reasonably priced. Decent atmosphere to boot.

Comment #72551

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 16, 2006 7:57 PM (e)

Argy,

It was some time ago and I do not remember the titles of the two threads in which the discussions took place. And I just don’t have the time, patience or inclination to conduct a thorough search. Sorry. I really should have kept a record.

But the gist of it was that it can be demonstrated that to the average person the EXACT same questions can be asked of Lenny (or anyone else of course) when he espouses support for evolution, for example. THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Comment #72554

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 16, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

I’m not sure whether to thank you and Nelson Russell or not, Dean, since between the twain of you, you had me drooling at my office desk, miles from the nearest cider…!

Carol, we’d all be inclined to take your poositions a little more seriously if you had learned–as at some point you certainly should have, in whatever courses you took prepratory to obtaining your “science supervisor” position–that there’s a key difference between philosphy, religion, and such other mental maunderings, and science.

The latter requires more than mentation, logic, deep thought (heck, shallow thought, for that matter), the pouring over of arcane texts by brilliant minds for thousands of years.

Science also requires evidence.

You’ve never shown us yours, for either of your propositions. And that’s the “difference” between religious opinion and science: repeatable, physical observations; repeatable, physical results. Your inability to grasp this crucial distinction is what makes the rest of us shudder when we think of you supervising science instructors.

Until then, you can indulge your “hypotheses” all you like. Without evidence that others can lay their hands on and evalutate, you can certainly have a fun time thinking theological thoughts, but you won’t have science.

And we still won’t care about your religious opinions.

(Now, the maroon would have a quick comeback for that last point: B-b-b-but, if none of you really cared, I wouldn’t have received all these neat-o comments! One hopes Oh Carol can do a little better than that.)

Comment #72557

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 8:21 PM (e)

Wooohh! Easy Tiger.
It isn’t my pub.

..sorry Steve wasn’t holding you responsible for the hostelry - just pointing out that cosmopolitan London doesn’t often stretch to the more authentic national fare when it comes to alcoholic apple juice.

Looking forward to it greatly anyway - let’s hope there are enough spare barstools…

Comment #72559

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 16, 2006 8:27 PM (e)

It’s not really a bar-stool pub. They have a few but not many. They seem to like letting customers get access to the bar. There are plenty of tables and chairs though.

It is also set out in a way that feels cosey. Big pub, but lots of different areas.

Comment #72562

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

Okay Carol - if you’re not going to answer Lenny’s questions - how about mine - what was that incident with Noah getting drunk and naked all about?

If I follow his example and someone sees me - who do I get to put a curse on?

(Or are curse-making powers reserved for people that build floating zoos?)

Comment #72563

Posted by argy stokes on January 16, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

Dean-

Actually, Carol’s answered that one before. I think you can curse them as long as you get sodomized, or something.

Comment #72568

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

.. well I’ll be buggered!

Comment #72570

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 16, 2006 9:53 PM (e)

(before anyone gets the wrong idea I should point out that that’s a common colloquial expression in the UK which means ‘Golly! how suprising!’)

Comment #72574

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 16, 2006 10:01 PM (e)

But the gist of it was that it can be demonstrated that to the average person the EXACT same questions can be asked of Lenny (or anyone else of course) when he espouses support for evolution, for example.

My religious opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, Carol. (shrug)

Now then, are you going to tell me why science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions, or aren’t you.

Are you going to tell me why Heddle is wrong about the New Testament and you are right, or aren’t you.

Comment #72575

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 16, 2006 10:03 PM (e)

(1) I argue that science cannot be used as a basis for discrediting the Bible, even if interpreted literally, so long as the original is translated correctly.

And science should care about this religious opinion because …?

(2) I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existance of the universe is to postualate that it exists due to the acts of a creator. And scientists should be adopting the most efficient explanation as their working hypotheses.

And science should care about this religious opinion because …. ?

Comment #72576

Posted by Ubernatural on January 16, 2006 10:20 PM (e)

Carol writes:

(1) I argue that science cannot be used as a basis for discrediting the Bible, even if interpreted literally, so long as the original is translated correctly.

Here’s why I think you’ll always have these disagreements with mainstream PT. If this is what you believe, that science will always agree with the bible, then the bible is scientifically useless. If every specific thing that science currently tells us that is not mentioned in the bible can be safely added to it to explain how “we” have found ourselves “here”… then, next year, when we find out something else about our origins, another Mr. Landa can add that bit to another book that explains how the bible still jives with scientific knowledge, and so on.

This works the other way around as well. If the bible doesn’t comment on the minutia of things like the taxonomy of bats or the significant digits of pi, then it also wouldn’t comment on the exact circumstances of our origin or of our universe’s origin. The Bible tells us that god did it, right? If you want to believe that, fine. It doesn’t tell us exactly how it unfolded.

The only things that the original bible adds to the body of knowledge, the things that aren’t being verified by independant human scientific research, consist entirely of miracles. And I don’t believe that miracles have or ever will happen. It has to do with me not caring about and not believing in other people’s religious opinions. So, when you say this:

But the gist of it was that it can be demonstrated that to the average person the EXACT same questions can be asked of Lenny (or anyone else of course) when he espouses support for evolution, for example. THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

I would agree with you 100% except “espousing evolution” is not in any way shape or form religious.

Does Dr. Mr. Reverend Flank assert the truthfulness of his notions about the origins of the evolutionary process, or the origins of the entire universe?!!

(2) I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existance of the universe is to postualate that it exists due to the acts of a creator. And scientists should be adopting the most efficient explanation as their working hypotheses.

Occam’s Razor. It’s your “God-did-it”, but it is by definition the most efficient.

Comment #72577

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 10:23 PM (e)

The conversation just meanders from one inanity to another.

once again, Carol graces us with her “blind vision”.

I guess she missed discussions about:

evolution in sharks

evolution in cichlids

evolution of thermoregulatory heat exhangers

an entirely new metabolic pathway recently discovered in plants that generates methane

and i’m sure i’m missing a few things.

just because we get chatty doesn’t mean nothing interesting gets discussed.

If you don’t actually like discussing science, Carol the “science advisor”, you are certainly free not too, but don’t pretend you care… cause you don’t.

Comment #72578

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 10:28 PM (e)

I didn’t say there was anything “wrong” with diving or alcohol (in moderation), just that the so called regulars should appreciate and therefore be more welcoming of the presence of the so called trolls.

this is very simply interpreted.

Carol wants to be a troll, and wants us to appreciate her for it.

I’ll agree with Carol that she is a troll, but I see no reason in this thread, or any other, to thank her for it.

Was there any other purpose than her 1st post today other than as flame bait?

nope.

so, what does that make her?

troll.

simple.

Congrats Carol, on embracing your trolldom.

It gets to be a lonely kingdom pretty quick tho.

Comment #72579

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 10:39 PM (e)

Now, after all the discussion and debate, I have not encountered here any reason to cast aside these ideas. There certainly has not appeared on any of the threads a convincing refutation of either of them, despite my frequent invitations and challenges to posters.

I call raspberries on that one.

In EVERY thread you haved posted your nonsense in, it has been refuted, and every argument made that showed the horrid inconsistencies in your logic, you have simply ignored.

I pointed this painting out to Don M, and now i point it out to you.

Ever seen Breugel the Elder’s “Parable of the Blind Man”?

They should redo-it and add “willfull blindess” in the line of blind walkers.

you could contribute a photo of yourself for the likeness to use, I think.

It’s too bad you have become nothing more than a troll, Carol, and one we now laugh at rather than discuss with.

This is not because of us, it is because of your uncanny ability to ignore any posts that run counter to your “logic”.

do this enough times, as you have, and you become nothing more than part of the troll gallery here on PT.

and no, I don’t find your arguments any more interesting (after hearing them for 3 months now) than the frivolous discussion of abiogenisis in hoppy ales.

play the troll and be happy, if you wish. Don’t expect us to be thankful for it tho.

phhhhhbbbbt!

Comment #72580

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 10:43 PM (e)

for anybody else who is curious:

Breugel was a flemish painter of the 16th century who painted such notable works as the one mentioned above, and “the Triumph of Death”.

here’s a sample of his work:

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/b/bruegel/pieter_e/painting/

Comment #72581

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 10:56 PM (e)

Carol repeated, incorrectly and for the nth time:

(1) I argue that science cannot be used as a basis for discrediting the Bible, even if interpreted literally, so long as the original is translated correctly.

…oh except for those parts which can be construed as “miracles”, like when you said:

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

and then followed that by an admission that with your “correct” translation, we would still have to consider the age of Moses to be miraculous.

yup. no inconsistency there, no-siree-bob…

lalalalalala.

Gees, Carol, do you need us to do the work for you and pull ALL of your exact words out of this thread alone where you contradict yourself so clearly?

Also note, that when confronted with this specific counter to your argument originally in this thread, you simply ran away.

upon your return, you blamed your absence on Larry (the troll, remember), who of course never actually engaged ANY of your postulates whatsoever.

You are so full of Bullshit it is getting quite tiresome. I only wish you could even recognize just how full of it you really are.

at least Larry appears retarded, so he has an excuse.

What’s yours?

Denial?
Projection?

what?

I think the reason Lenny’s questions irritate you so much, is that even tho simplistic, they DO hit right on the mark the issue you seem to be suffering from.

Comment #72582

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 16, 2006 10:59 PM (e)

sorry for going on an on about it, but 3 months of Carol’s BS and driveby’s masquerading as “thought” have really irked me.

I’m hopin that the smallest sliver of this manages to sink into that skull of concrete she seems to have donned and makes her think twice about presenting the same, stale, completely refuted arguments over and over again.

maybe she will decide to talk about Ale and Abiogenesis instead.

Comment #72584

Posted by Paul Flocken on January 16, 2006 11:34 PM (e)

I suppose if RBH wanted to kill this thread he could simply ask PVM to close it. He hasn’t so please forgive me for adding to the bandwith.

Carol wrote:

A thought that comes to mind as I contemplate 800 posts on one thread, is the following:

Over the course of the last few months, since I first came here, there have emerged two areas of disagreement between myself and many (certainly not all) of the so called non-trolls here. Those areas are:

(1) I argue that science cannot be used as a basis for discrediting the Bible, even if interpreted literally, so long as the original is translated correctly.

(2) I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existence of the universe is to postulate that it exists due to the acts of a creator. And scientists should be adopting the most efficient explanation as their working hypotheses.

Carol, if I can address the part that I emboldened. Several days ago I asked you a question in Dr. Perakh’s thermo thread, but he closed it when he felt it was full enough. If you will, I’ll repeat it here. But first a request. I can’t say I have followed every thread you have posted to and like you I don’t want to do an exhaustive search. Will you reiterate the argument you are referencing here?

Here was the question.

Comment #67687

Posted by Paul Flocken on January 4, 2006 05:50 PM (e) (s)

Carol Clouser wrote:

Some smart guy asked “Who designed the designer?” Well, the point is that the logic of the situation dictates the existence of an entity that has no features, no particular parameters and therefore no design.

Carol you seem to be rather enamored of logic. Can I take it to be that you really seem to think that logic is important? That it should be taken seriously by one and all?

Carol further wrote:

The difference is, one exists and can act,

That is an assertion. Evidence?

OK. I’ll add another question to the two from that old thread.

I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existence of the universe is to postulate that it exists due to the acts of a creator.

Is there any particular reason that we should accept that this creator is the one from your holy book and not a creator from any other particular religion’s holy book?

By the way I lifted your phone# for JLPub from Bowker. Would I be welcome to use it?

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #72643

Posted by Odd Digit on January 17, 2006 2:39 AM (e)

Carol Clouser:

I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existence of the universe is to postulate that it exists due to the acts of a creator.

Well, there seem to be two main possibilites for the existence of the universe:

1. It was created by a creator
2. It arose through natural means, no creator required

As we don’t actually know either way, I would suggest that throwing an extra creator into the mix where one might not be required is not the most parsimonious approach. Why would it be more efficient to add an extra variable?

Comment #72649

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 17, 2006 3:04 AM (e)

Paul,

The argument for a creator is entirely independent of the God of this or that book. The argument simply asserts that the logic of the situation dictates that a creator exist. Whether or not the god of any particular book coincides with or is identical to this creator is another question. If you will in turn ask me just this other question, my answer will be that you need to specify the book you have in mind. I do not claim expertise in all books. In the case of the Hebrew Bible, I think the answer is a definite yes.

You ask for the “evidence” for the assertion I made. Well, if I recall correctly, I made the assertion after making the case for the assertion. The evidence consists of the persuasiveness of the argument. It does not contain any graphs, data, statistics or equations, but it is no less valid than, for example, the evidence for the theorem that the sum of the angles of a triangle (two dimensional) is 180 in the ansence of actually measuring those angles. Science is not the only way to the facts of life.

As far as “your phone number for JL Pub” is concerned, I am not sure what you mean by that phrase. If you mean my phone at work, I doubt it is listed there. In any event, I am sure any number that appears on Bowker for JL is for business use only and you ought to adhere to that.

Folks,

Just in case it may have escaped the attention of some, let the record emphatically state that not responding to a poster is NOT necessarily equivalent to “running away”. One can choose not to respond to a post because it is deemed infinitely dumb and devoid of any content. Or because the tone of the post has been found wanting.

Comment #72655

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 17, 2006 3:22 AM (e)

Carol,
What is your opinion on:

1.Original sin; is it true and if so, what is it?
2.Exodus; Is this an accurate account?
3.Job; Same question?

Comment #72657

Posted by Odd Digit on January 17, 2006 3:25 AM (e)

Carol Clouser:

The evidence consists of the persuasiveness of the argument.

So there is no evidence.

This is exact problem suffered by the arguments for ID. A persuasive argument is not evidence. “It looks designed to me” is not evidence, it’s an opinion. “I believe a creator created the universe” is not evidence, it’s an opinion. It might be correct, but in the absence of evidence you can’t show that either way. Which is of course exactly the same as saying “I believe the universe arose through natural means” - that is also an opinion sans evidence.

The only accurate statement on the origins of the universe is “we don’t know”.

Comment #72675

Posted by Renier on January 17, 2006 4:11 AM (e)

Carol

You are not here with an open mind. You cannot afford to “loose” your religion. Family, friends, finances etc might not react well to that.

Most of the people here has been in a religious environment. You have never viewed the world out of an atheistic or agnostic viewpoint (I might be wrong here, so I am guessing). The chance that you are going to convince people here that you have the correct revelation (world view) is…uh…zero. They have all considered your arguments, weighed them and found them too light.

On the other hand, you have no problem with evolution. You do realise that there is a lot of evidence for it. You are a scientist. Let’s keep the supernatural out of it. Let’s leave the supernatural to religion, philosophy etc.

Have you ever considered what the ID people would do if they had half a chance? They would impose the Christian (not Jewish) world view on millions of innocent kids. So on who’s side of the fence do you REALLY want to be on?

We might react strongly to you when your dogma, your opinion, your religion is presented as truth and that we should accept it. We know you perceive it as truth, but we don’t. We have heard it all a zillion times before, considered it and came to our own conclusions of what the truth is. Only one thing will sway us. Evidence. Nothing else. We understand where you are coming from. We have been there. Do you understand where we are coming from?

Please start looking at us a people and not targets to convert/convince.

Think of Steve Elliot. He believes there is some type of god out there. Why do you think we treat him with respect and oppose the IDiots? There are many Christians that come here and get treated with respect. Yet, someone like Heddle (or Larry) is treated as the “bad guy”. Do you know why? Think about it.

Theodoric the Goth once said “No man can be made to believe”. We cannot be made to believe what you believe, unless you bring us evidence. Until then, chill out and relax and try to understand why Lenny repeats himself with “It is JUST your opinion…

Comment #72680

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 17, 2006 4:28 AM (e)

Carol wrote:

(2) I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existence of the universe is to postulate that it exists due to the acts of a creator. And scientists should be adopting the most efficient explanation as their working hypotheses.

ID postulates that life cannot exist without a creator because features of it are ‘irreducibly complex’.
And they say that nothing can be known about the identity of this creator.
But surely some features of said creator ought to be identifiable. The ability to whisk up a universe complete with myriad interdependent lifeforms bearing irreducibly complex features can’t be easy. Such a creator would need to be an ‘irreducibly complex’ organism itself, surely? What do we know about ‘irreducibly complex’ entities? Yes!…. they need creators!

“So nat’ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller fleas that bite ‘em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.” (Jonathan Swift)

Need I go on?

Far from being parsimonious or ‘efficient’, your solution to the existence of the universe is infinitely vacuous.

In the case of your creator of choice: A being that can formulate cosmic laws; create the heavens,earth, life and mankind; arrange for geological strata to be arranged in a deliberately misleading yet oddly satisfying way; pick a group of people and decide to write books for them; decide to interfere with their day-to-day affairs from time to time; demonstrate human emotions such as regret; adjust the laws of optics as an apology; reward drunk and naked acolytes with the power to dish out generation hopping curses; watch his favourite readership be badly treated by non-readers for generation after generation; take a laid-back attitude to copyright on his book; preside over the shambolic chimp party that is human life; and generally ‘move about in mysterious ways’: definitely sounds ‘irreducibly complex’ to me.

Take him off to Dembski who will happily demonstrate this mathematically for you (for a small fee of course).

And I would agree with him - irreducibly complex and definitely in need of a creator or two. Amazing how creative those Bronze Age shepherds could be all those years ago. Even created him ‘in their own image’ complete with human frailties.

Now there’s parsimonious for you.

Comment #72696

Posted by k.e. on January 17, 2006 5:34 AM (e)

Carol
If begging the question
is projecting your opinion and denying the the answer then why do you ask ?

Carol wrote:
The argument for a creator is entirely independent of the God of this or that book.

=Opinion =A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
Synonyms=opinion, view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion,
a choosing
The product of a creative mind not reflected in nature by evidence
A projection of a world view for political gain

Carol wrote:
The argument simply asserts that the logic of the situation dictates that a creator exist.

=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
Whether or not the god of any particular book coincides with or is identical to this creator is another question.

=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
If you will in turn ask me just this other question, my answer will be that you need to specify the book you have in mind.

=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
I do not claim expertise in all books. In the case of the Hebrew Bible, I think the answer is a definite yes.

=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
You ask for the “evidence” for the assertion I made. Well, if I recall correctly, I made the assertion after making the case for the assertion.

Circular reasoning=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
The evidence consists of the persuasiveness of the argument.

Circular reasoning=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
It does not contain any graphs, data, statistics or equations, but it is no less valid than, for example, the evidence for the theorem that the sum of the angles of a triangle (two dimensional) is 180 in the ansence of actually measuring those angles.

Circular reasoning=Begging the question to support Opinion see above

Carol wrote:
Science is not the only way to the facts of life.

The scientific method and critical analysis and the evidence it gathers does not run on Carols Circular reasoning which she projects as her Opinion

Carol wrote:
Folks,

Just in case it may have escaped the attention of some, let the record emphatically state that not responding to a poster is NOT necessarily equivalent to “running away”.

well well well said the policeman when he came to a hole in the road.

Carol wrote:
One can choose not to respond to a post because it is deemed infinitely dumb and devoid of any content. Or because the tone of the post has been found wanting.

Righteous indignation passing as ….evidence for science ?

Carol: The Sky is an Immortal Tent Built by the Sons of Los
(apologies to William Blake)

The sky is an immortal tent built by the Sons of Los:
And every space that a man views around his dwelling-place
Standing on his own roof or in his garden on a mount
Of twenty-five cubits in height, such space is his universe:
And on its verge the sun rises and sets, the clouds bow
To meet the flat earth and the sea in such an order’d space:
The starry heavens reach no further, but here bend and set
On all sides, and the two Poles turn on their valves of gold:
And if he moves his dwelling-place, his heavens also move
Where’er he goes, and all his neighbourhood bewail his loss.
Such are the spaces called Earth and such its dimension.
As to that false appearance which appears to the reasoner
As of a globe rolling through voidness, it is a delusion of Ulro.
The microscope knows not of this nor the telescope: they alter
The ratio of the spectator’s organs, but leave objects untouch’d.
For every space larger than a red globule of Man’s blood
Is visionary, and is created by the Hammer of Los;
And every space smaller than a globule of Man’s blood opens
Into Eternity of which this vegetable Earth is but a shadow.
The red globule is the unwearied sun by Los created
To measure time and space to mortal men every morning.

Comment #72738

Posted by Louis on January 17, 2006 7:40 AM (e)

“The evidence consists of the persuasiveness of the argument”.

and

“Science is not the only way to the facts of life.”

Two comments from Carol that sum it all up really. There is no arguing with people of her “mindset”. Thinking outside her “god box” is impossible for her, which ironically is precisely what she accuses us scientists/PTers of. Ah irony, sweet, sweet irony.

Carol,

A couple of questions for you:

1) Different people are equally persuaded by different arguments to the one that you are persuaded by. How (i.e. by what means and on what basis) can an impartial third party distinguish between two apparently equally persuasive arguments?

2) What are these other ways to the facts of life, and how does one use them?

Thanks.

Comment #72743

Posted by Paul Flocken on January 17, 2006 7:50 AM (e)

Carol,
gotta go to work now. i’ll try to get back promptly this evening.

Comment #72744

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 17, 2006 7:51 AM (e)

The argument for a creator is entirely independent of the God of this or that book.

Says you. (shrug)

Once again I ask, why should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions? What makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor’s or my car mechanic’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?

Comment #72792

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 17, 2006 10:00 AM (e)

Reneir,

I AM on your side. I AM NOT interested in changing your mind and said so above and many other times. I couldn’t care less what you think, although I do enjoy debating. I brought my point #1 (see #72544) to this blog because I think it would be immensely useful to the science side of the ongoing cultural wars. And point #2 is kind of ancillary to point #1.

Even on points where I presented real down to earth evidence, folks here refused to listen because they do not like the conclusions. It is a myth that scientists are objective creatures moved solely by evidence. That is a worthy goal to strive toward and perhaps scientists are more cognizant of this than most, but they frequently fall short as most mortals often do.

For example, what would constitute solid evidence in the area of what Hebrew words in the original Bible’s story of Genesis might mean? Obviously a prime candidate is how those words are used throughout the Bible in other contexts. How many times have I presented solid evidence here, only to be ignored? I feel like Galileo must have as he stood there begging people to look through his telescope and see for themselves (that the moon is not perfect, that bodies revolve around Jupiter, and so on), but they refused to look. THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. That’s how some folks here respond to evidence that supports conclusions they have long ago decided they do not like.

So it’s not as simple as you make it out to be. And I am not moved by the mantle of objectivity some here wrap around themselves.

Comment #72801

Posted by Louis on January 17, 2006 10:28 AM (e)

Carol,

The BEST, and I mean the absolute BEST, that can be acheived by your literary and contextual analysis of the bible is that you can find an interpretation of the bible that does not contradict modern science. This would mean very little, if anything. It isn’t solid evidence, it’s twisting the definitions of words to suit a purpose and it requires the complicity of the people you are trying to convince.

Comparing it to the physical evidence that Galileo had, that was independant of Galileo and could be observed by anyone is not only a gross misunderstanding of science, but also of what constitutes solid evidence. Galileo you ain’t, and genesis ain’t science.

Even if you switch the words “age” and “day” etc (I hope it’s more subtle than this), even if you are finding uses of the words that you can shoehorn into genesis to make it consonent with modern physics you have to add a large amount of information and interpretation to claim that genesis describes modern science. Why the hell is your interpretation of so vague and mutable a text so superior and accurate?

If you claim the bible predicts subtle physics only detecable by the most careful of modern experiments, then it falls to you to explain how those predictions were made and on what basis. Setting several instances of twisted textual interpretation up as proof doesn’t cut it.

Also, libelling people who don’t agree with your claims because the “evidence” you use to support them fails to do the job as being blinkered is seriously cracked. Add to that the fact that you have compared yourself to Galileo and you appear to be a crackpot. The laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Orville and Wilbur Wright, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Comment #72802

Posted by Ubernatural on January 17, 2006 10:29 AM (e)

Carol, I realize that we’re all clamoring for responses from you at the end of a very long thread, and my comments may have gotten missed, but I can’t help wondering if you’re lumping my post #72576 in with this statement:

One can choose not to respond to a post because it is deemed infinitely dumb and devoid of any content. Or because the tone of the post has been found wanting.

I sincerely hope not??

Comment #72809

Posted by k.e. on January 17, 2006 10:49 AM (e)

uh Bozo …oh I mean Carol…
Stunning logic there on comparing the cardinals who were *only* worried that the “music of the spheres” was going to be stopped by looking through a telescope because their

Opinion =A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:Their view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion,
a choosing
The product of a creative mind not reflected in nature by evidence
A projection of a world view for political gain

would be shattered.

So Carol please provide positive knowledge or proof for …..lets say electromagnetic radiation, quantum theory, general relativity, evolution in Genesis.

Comment #72810

Posted by Odd Digit on January 17, 2006 10:52 AM (e)

Carol:

THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. That’s how some folks here respond to evidence that supports conclusions they have long ago decided they do not like.

Carol, you haven’t provided any evidence:

The evidence consists of the persuasiveness of the argument.

An argument is not evidence.

Comment #72815

Posted by carol clouser on January 17, 2006 11:04 AM (e)

Ubernatural,

No, I was not referring to your post. Sorry if that possibility entered your mind. The posters I did refer to, know very well what I was referring to.

Comment #72818

Posted by k.e. on January 17, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

Hah ……I know

Carol Said: The posters I did refer to, know very well what I was referring to.

It is a myth A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology that scientists Carol are is an objective creatures moved solely by evidence.

Carol time to catch up….
Genisis is a Myth A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation mythbased on

Comment #72833

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 17, 2006 12:11 PM (e)

Oh Carol!

Let’s see, “science isn’t the only way to the truth.” Which admits that your arguments lack evidence and aren’t science. But you still believe them to be “consistent with” science, and that is still important to you for some reason none of the rest of us can follow.

And now you are reduced to comparing Galileo’s physical evidence to your loopy textual evidence, even though you’ve admitted you don’t care about the evidence, and that science isn’t the only way to truth.

You got some serious ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy.

Dean:

the shambolic chimp party that is human life

That is such a great phrase to toss off in the middle of this chimp party! Obviously, all that cider has primed the wellsprings of your eloquence.

Comment #72861

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 17, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

Well only 150 to go. So on a light note.

Posted by k.e. on January 17, 2006 10:49 AM (e) (s)

….

So Carol please provide positive knowledge or proof for …..lets say … evolution in Genesis.

“Let the Earth bring forth…”
;>

Comment #72897

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 17, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

Two comments from Carol that sum it all up really. There is no arguing with people of her “mindset”. Thinking outside her “god box” is impossible for her, which ironically is precisely what she accuses us scientists/PTers of. Ah irony, sweet, sweet irony.

nope. that’s not irony, that’s projection. It’s a classic psychological defense mechanism.

Carol needs psychoanalysis, not debate.

Comment #72898

Posted by AC on January 17, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

Carol wrote:

Come to think of it, there actually is something misplaced, in my humble opinion, about analyzing in depth the relative merits of different forms of drinks and drinking. There ought to be more important things in life worthy of the attention of intelligent people.

I agree, except I include religion in the class of things than which we have more important things to do. I won’t mention all the parallels between religion and drinking.

(1) I argue that science cannot be used as a basis for discrediting the Bible, even if interpreted literally, so long as the original is translated correctly.

We are all just masturbating when we engage in this argument, because, regardless of who is right, it has no bearing on the practice of science. The bible is not a textbook for any science, and no scientific principle has been discovered because of it. The bible also cannot claim moral authority on the grounds of being “consistent with science”.

(2) I argue that one can rationally demonstrate that the most efficient explanation for the existance of the universe is to postualate that it exists due to the acts of a creator. And scientists should be adopting the most efficient explanation as their working hypotheses.

Most efficient? Sure, if you don’t delve any further into “creator” than to simply say the word. But what does it mean to create a universe? What does it mean to be transcendent? Omnipotent? Omniscient? The list goes on. If all these fiendishly troublesome concepts are glossed over by the encapsulation “god”, life definitely gets a lot simpler - but not more sensible.

Comment #72911

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 17, 2006 3:11 PM (e)

Posted by AC on January 17, 2006 02:43 PM (e) (s)

Carol wrote:

Come to think of it, there actually is something misplaced, in my humble opinion, about analyzing in depth the relative merits of different forms of drinks and drinking. There ought to be more important things in life worthy of the attention of intelligent people.

I agree,

SPLITTER!

What is more important than beer, why? Show some empirical evidence.

Comment #72928

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 17, 2006 3:37 PM (e)

Carol wrote:

Come to think of it, there actually is something misplaced, in my humble opinion, about analyzing in depth the relative merits of different forms of drinks and drinking. There ought to be more important things in life worthy of the attention of intelligent people.

‘Beer is God’s proof that he loves us and wants us to be happy’. Benjamin Franklin

Since brewing is a Science then presumably it’s compatible with the Bible Carol? Pehaps Noah was prepared to get ‘pissed up’ on the first concoction he could cobble together (it certainly made him grouchy) - but things have moved on since then. What if we were all drinking some lethal hooch that got us out of our skulls to the extent that we got naked (and possibly sodomised) and started cursing our nearest and dearest? Indeed some of us may choose to follow Noah’s example but others of us are on a quest for the elixir of life - if don’t want to join us and prefer read your dusty old books (or your husband’s new one)that’s up to you.

Comment #72940

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 17, 2006 3:45 PM (e)

We need Larry and evopeach on here, rether than messing up other threads.

BTW. Did evopeach pay up on the bet?

Comment #72988

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 17, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

I’ve tried to get him off the (real)Panda thread nad over here - boy to he take that one off- thread - someone else has set up the Bathroom Wall again especially for him. But people can’t resist engaging with the idiot when we need him here!!!
(Sorry Carol - we know he’s distasteful to say the least).

Comment #72992

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 17, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

Stephen, dude! You snagged both 800 and 850!

I see we’ve dropped off the front page, so I’d better go carefully and in redundant detail describe to lala how to find his way “home.”

I’m not saying anything directly to evil-peach, though. One must maintain a certain standard.

Comment #72999

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 17, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

I’ve left another message on the ‘Real Pandas Thumb’ thread If you guys can help encourage the others to send him here every time he pops up to demolish another thread I’d appreciate it.

Comment #73011

Posted by AC on January 17, 2006 6:34 PM